6 ms·

In court filing, Facebook admits ‘fact checks’ are nothing more than opinion

94 points by rmason 5y ago

baash05 5y ago
This feels like that 100% beef thing that McDonalds was rumoured to have done. (Urban legend) We Fact Checked (tm) I think they should be held to account, if they're slapping that label on things.
Minor49er 5y ago
I didn't realize that this was prompted by Facebook labeling information that John Stossel posted as "false and misleading". I found a post with his side of it: https://www.thenews-messenger.com/story/opinion/2021/10/02/john-stossel-suing-facebook-defamation/5912907001/ https://www.thenews-messenger.com/story/opinion/2021/10/02/j...
- xupybd 5y ago
  I don't always agree with John Stossel but he appears to have a lot of integrity. I can't say that about many reporters these days. I'm glad he is standing up to this.
ErikCorry 5y ago
My guess as a legal amateur: If it's opinion, then Facebook's actions are protected by the First Amendment. So while they may not internally view it as "nothing more than opinion" they are willing to argue this in court. Everyone likes to win their court cases. This is part of a defamation case. Defamation cases are hard to win in the US because of the First Amendment.
- beerandt 5y ago
  It's a little bit different here since there's an actual editorial response, and not just removal or similar. The whole reason facebook has 3rd parties do the factchecks is so it can claim that it isn't responsible for the factcheck content. They're basically trying to game the system to get all the benefits of a platform (waived liability), while still exercising editorial opinions as if a publisher, even if it's by way of selecting which 3rd parties it defers this defacto editorial power to. I think if they wanted to claim freespeech here, it would amount to an (at least partial) admission that they are responsible for the content, which afaiu would make them subject to libel. It's more or less a reinvention of what was attempted with "company towns", obviously with some significant differences.
  - krapp 5y ago
    >They're basically trying to game the system to get all the benefits of a platform (waived liability), while still exercising editorial opinions as if a publisher. Sigh. Section 230 makes no distinction between "platform" and "publisher" in regards to liability or editorial options. Sites have always been allowed to make "editorial opinions" while maintaining that protection. Platforms do not have to be neutral, nor do they lose their liability protection if they cease to be neutral in their moderation decisions. They're not gaming the system, that is the system working as intended. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-it-doesnt-matter https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
    - hiram112 5y ago
      If this is true - whether because the courts don't enforce the "spirit" of the original law or for some other reason - why can't all companies just use Section 230 like the tech "platforms"? I mean CNN, Fox, NYTimes, etc. have big digital footprints, hire teams of engineers, publish "user-generated" content (i.e. comment sections), host videos, etc. Why are they subject to libel and defamation lawsuits, but Google, FB, etc. get to hide behind section 230? Why did only CNN, MSNBC, etc. get publicly humiliated by the Covington kid's lawyers when partisan "moderators" at Google and Facebook essentially posted the exact same libelous content (either directly or by just censoring / amplifying the posts of others)? Why have both Fox news (e.g. Tucker Carlson) and MSNBC (Rachel Maddow) had to spend millions defending themselves recently from defamation lawsuits, when Zuckerburg or Sundar Pichai could essentially make the EXACT same claims they did on their "platforms", yet be protected by this vague Section 230 shield? It seems like the law has become a joke, where you're basically guaranteed protection if you're head-quartered in California and considered a "tech company," while older established companies have to play by a completely different set of rules, even if their business models are exactly the same (selling ads and narratives, propaganda dissemination, etc.)
      - 5y ago
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  Libel is extremely easy to win actually seeing as you have evidence of malice to undermine someones character. The key is proving losses. Like Stossel said, most of the media companies he worked for would have fired him if he misattributed a quote. Facebook is getting a free pass to libel people they dont like. If Facebook did this to Democrats, they would be demanding a reform much like the republicans. They dont because Facebook promotes the same ideology as them.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
scotuswroteus 5y ago
admits that FACEBOOK'S fact checks are nothing more than opinion. Facebook isn't an arbiter of that question in the more general sense.
decremental 5y ago
You'd think this would be a huge scandal. I'm surprised by the relatively muted response on this forum/website.
- krapp 5y ago
  Hacker News has already reached maximum cynicism/outrage saturation regarding social media. It's already taken for granted here that Facebook has the entire world addicted like heroin, actively participates in mass murder and genocide, controls most human communication, thought and perception, acts as a surveillance front for the military industrial complex, is responsible for the downfall of human civilization, and is controlled by a shadowy Marxist conspiracy more powerful than any government. I mean, they've reached comic book supervillain levels of evil as far as this forum is concerned. This kind of thing doesn't even swing the needle. "Oh, so Hitler was also a litterbug? Ed Gein also didn't wash his hands after using the bathroom? Ok..."
  - decremental 5y ago
    I didn't realize HN is so based and redpilled.
    - krapp 5y ago
      It has its moments.
- DoItToMe81 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure everyone already knew it, even if it wasn't outright stated. Who trusts Facebook with the ability to decide what is correct and is not, after all? It's hard to be outraged and scandalized by something you've assumed to be occurring for a very long time.
jjeaff 5y ago
It seems to me the problem they have is trying to outsource the fact checking while sort of implying the fact check is either the official stance of Facebook or done by Facebook themselves. It seems like this could be avoided by alternate wording for their fact check. If I remember correctly, they flag articles with something like "false or misleading". Perhaps they should simply flag them with, "This post may be false or misleading, please review the following sources that claim this article is false or misleading" But the problem with all of this boils down to the fact that a very large number of people don't just get their news from Facebook, they get it from the headlines of articles posted to Facebook. I don't know what percentage of people actually read the articles before forming an opinion, but it must be exceedingly low. I have had many conversations with people on Facebook that will post articles they think prove them right because of the headline when in fact, the article will very nearly be the complete opposite of what the headline implies. The same even does for lots of videos. It seems people have even stopped watching the videos before they repost.
Jimmc414 5y ago
I don't mean to sound facetious, but what else could a Facebook fact check be besides an opinion?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mansion7 5y ago
  They could label it an "opinion check". "Fact check" leads readers to the false conclusion that the data presented is... factual.
thoughtstheseus 5y ago
This issue just shows Facebook is dead /// onto the metaverse
advisedwang 5y ago
This is a climate change denier website, full of faulty and misleading reporting. You should be very skeptical of anything you read here. In this case, Facebook said that labeling something as "missing context" as the _conclusion_ is an statement of opinion. This was not about ALL fact checks and not about the contents of facts in them. This site is deliberately misleading you to support climate change denial by claiming that it is.
- scarygliders 5y ago
  > This is a climate change denier website, full of faulty and misleading reporting. What absolute rubbish which sounds like it comes from a complete zealot. If you took the time to read the site, you'd find a plethora of insightful articles and information. Just because a site may not show information one would like, doesn't necessarily make it faulty or misleading. And lastly, using the phrase "climate denier" absolutely sounds like it comes from a closed-minded religious zealot rather than a rational individual. No one denies climates all over the Earth changes. It does. What a lot of people a sceptical of and offer counter-arguments to is the claim that humans are responsible for it - or especially a trace gas comprising just 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere.
bagacrap 5y ago
I think this is a non story. "Opinion" has a legal meaning. What Facebook is saying with the badge is "we think this post contains false information based on this other fact checking article", and from there they have to argue whether the opinion is protected or not protected, since prefacing "IMO..." does not actually protect you from libel laws. You'll see in the filing the lawyers also argue the actual fact-checking article is "neither false nor defamatory". The second part is important because if you base an opinion on false facts, then it's not protected speech. IANAL

94 points by rmason 5y ago

This feels like that 100% beef thing that McDonalds was rumoured to have done. (Urban legend) We Fact Checked (tm) I think they should be held to account, if they're slapping that label on things.

Minor49er 5y ago

I didn't realize that this was prompted by Facebook labeling information that John Stossel posted as "false and misleading". I found a post with his side of it: https://www.thenews-messenger.com/story/opinion/2021/10/02/john-stossel-suing-facebook-defamation/5912907001/ https://www.thenews-messenger.com/story/opinion/2021/10/02/j...

xupybd 5y ago
I don't always agree with John Stossel but he appears to have a lot of integrity. I can't say that about many reporters these days. I'm glad he is standing up to this.

ErikCorry 5y ago

My guess as a legal amateur: If it's opinion, then Facebook's actions are protected by the First Amendment. So while they may not internally view it as "nothing more than opinion" they are willing to argue this in court. Everyone likes to win their court cases. This is part of a defamation case. Defamation cases are hard to win in the US because of the First Amendment.

beerandt 5y ago
It's a little bit different here since there's an actual editorial response, and not just removal or similar. The whole reason facebook has 3rd parties do the factchecks is so it can claim that it isn't responsible for the factcheck content. They're basically trying to game the system to get all the benefits of a platform (waived liability), while still exercising editorial opinions as if a publisher, even if it's by way of selecting which 3rd parties it defers this defacto editorial power to. I think if they wanted to claim freespeech here, it would amount to an (at least partial) admission that they are responsible for the content, which afaiu would make them subject to libel. It's more or less a reinvention of what was attempted with "company towns", obviously with some significant differences.
- krapp 5y ago
  >They're basically trying to game the system to get all the benefits of a platform (waived liability), while still exercising editorial opinions as if a publisher. Sigh. Section 230 makes no distinction between "platform" and "publisher" in regards to liability or editorial options. Sites have always been allowed to make "editorial opinions" while maintaining that protection. Platforms do not have to be neutral, nor do they lose their liability protection if they cease to be neutral in their moderation decisions. They're not gaming the system, that is the system working as intended. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-it-doesnt-matter https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
  - hiram112 5y ago
    If this is true - whether because the courts don't enforce the "spirit" of the original law or for some other reason - why can't all companies just use Section 230 like the tech "platforms"? I mean CNN, Fox, NYTimes, etc. have big digital footprints, hire teams of engineers, publish "user-generated" content (i.e. comment sections), host videos, etc. Why are they subject to libel and defamation lawsuits, but Google, FB, etc. get to hide behind section 230? Why did only CNN, MSNBC, etc. get publicly humiliated by the Covington kid's lawyers when partisan "moderators" at Google and Facebook essentially posted the exact same libelous content (either directly or by just censoring / amplifying the posts of others)? Why have both Fox news (e.g. Tucker Carlson) and MSNBC (Rachel Maddow) had to spend millions defending themselves recently from defamation lawsuits, when Zuckerburg or Sundar Pichai could essentially make the EXACT same claims they did on their "platforms", yet be protected by this vague Section 230 shield? It seems like the law has become a joke, where you're basically guaranteed protection if you're head-quartered in California and considered a "tech company," while older established companies have to play by a completely different set of rules, even if their business models are exactly the same (selling ads and narratives, propaganda dissemination, etc.)
    - 5y ago
MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
Libel is extremely easy to win actually seeing as you have evidence of malice to undermine someones character. The key is proving losses. Like Stossel said, most of the media companies he worked for would have fired him if he misattributed a quote. Facebook is getting a free pass to libel people they dont like. If Facebook did this to Democrats, they would be demanding a reform much like the republicans. They dont because Facebook promotes the same ideology as them.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

scotuswroteus 5y ago

admits that FACEBOOK'S fact checks are nothing more than opinion. Facebook isn't an arbiter of that question in the more general sense.

decremental 5y ago

You'd think this would be a huge scandal. I'm surprised by the relatively muted response on this forum/website.

krapp 5y ago
Hacker News has already reached maximum cynicism/outrage saturation regarding social media. It's already taken for granted here that Facebook has the entire world addicted like heroin, actively participates in mass murder and genocide, controls most human communication, thought and perception, acts as a surveillance front for the military industrial complex, is responsible for the downfall of human civilization, and is controlled by a shadowy Marxist conspiracy more powerful than any government. I mean, they've reached comic book supervillain levels of evil as far as this forum is concerned. This kind of thing doesn't even swing the needle. "Oh, so Hitler was also a litterbug? Ed Gein also didn't wash his hands after using the bathroom? Ok..."
- decremental 5y ago
  I didn't realize HN is so based and redpilled.
  - krapp 5y ago
    It has its moments.
DoItToMe81 5y ago
I'm pretty sure everyone already knew it, even if it wasn't outright stated. Who trusts Facebook with the ability to decide what is correct and is not, after all? It's hard to be outraged and scandalized by something you've assumed to be occurring for a very long time.

jjeaff 5y ago

It seems to me the problem they have is trying to outsource the fact checking while sort of implying the fact check is either the official stance of Facebook or done by Facebook themselves. It seems like this could be avoided by alternate wording for their fact check. If I remember correctly, they flag articles with something like "false or misleading". Perhaps they should simply flag them with, "This post may be false or misleading, please review the following sources that claim this article is false or misleading" But the problem with all of this boils down to the fact that a very large number of people don't just get their news from Facebook, they get it from the headlines of articles posted to Facebook. I don't know what percentage of people actually read the articles before forming an opinion, but it must be exceedingly low. I have had many conversations with people on Facebook that will post articles they think prove them right because of the headline when in fact, the article will very nearly be the complete opposite of what the headline implies. The same even does for lots of videos. It seems people have even stopped watching the videos before they repost.

Jimmc414 5y ago

I don't mean to sound facetious, but what else could a Facebook fact check be besides an opinion?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mansion7 5y ago
They could label it an "opinion check". "Fact check" leads readers to the false conclusion that the data presented is... factual.

thoughtstheseus 5y ago

This issue just shows Facebook is dead /// onto the metaverse

advisedwang 5y ago

This is a climate change denier website, full of faulty and misleading reporting. You should be very skeptical of anything you read here. In this case, Facebook said that labeling something as "missing context" as the _conclusion_ is an statement of opinion. This was not about ALL fact checks and not about the contents of facts in them. This site is deliberately misleading you to support climate change denial by claiming that it is.

scarygliders 5y ago
> This is a climate change denier website, full of faulty and misleading reporting. What absolute rubbish which sounds like it comes from a complete zealot. If you took the time to read the site, you'd find a plethora of insightful articles and information. Just because a site may not show information one would like, doesn't necessarily make it faulty or misleading. And lastly, using the phrase "climate denier" absolutely sounds like it comes from a closed-minded religious zealot rather than a rational individual. No one denies climates all over the Earth changes. It does. What a lot of people a sceptical of and offer counter-arguments to is the claim that humans are responsible for it - or especially a trace gas comprising just 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere.

bagacrap 5y ago

I think this is a non story. "Opinion" has a legal meaning. What Facebook is saying with the badge is "we think this post contains false information based on this other fact checking article", and from there they have to argue whether the opinion is protected or not protected, since prefacing "IMO..." does not actually protect you from libel laws. You'll see in the filing the lawyers also argue the actual fact-checking article is "neither false nor defamatory". The second part is important because if you base an opinion on false facts, then it's not protected speech. IANAL