4 ms·
Appropriate indignation and demand on BMJ's part. Meanwhile, in the Stossel libel case, Facebook's lawyers allegedly 'claim that Facebook’s “fact-checks” are m
by a9h74j 5y ago
Appropriate indignation and demand on BMJ's part.
Meanwhile, in the Stossel libel case, Facebook's lawyers allegedly 'claim that Facebook’s “fact-checks” are merely “opinion” and therefore immune from defamation.'
- EdSharkey 5y agoThey claimed it was "protected opinion", now that's cocky! > The quote in Facebook’s complaint is, > "The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion."
- btbuildem 5y agoWow that's twisted
- lp0_on_fire 5y agoI am not a lawyer but that seems like some like a legal "gotcha" claim that most courts would frown upon. They positioned these "fact checkers" as arbiters of truth. At no point in the past year has Facebook indicated that these were merely opinion.
- sjy 5y ago> Meta is alleged only to have superimposed a fact-check label on the Fire Video, describing Climate Feedback’s conclusion that the video was “missing context.” Stossel does not claim that label is actionably false—presumably because it is protected opinion. The conclusion that the video was “missing context” is necessarily a judgment call, one that is “not capable of verification or refutation by means of objective proof.” Seems like a reasonable claim to me. https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Facebook-admits-its-fact-check-is-opinion-page-2.pdf https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Faceb...
- clusterfish 5y agoEither you're checking objective facts, or you're providing subjective opinion. You can't label it as the former in public, but in court claim it's the latter. Legally, maybe, IANAL. Reasonably - no.
- a9h74j 5y agoGood point; see my late edit directly above. Thanks for adding the link.
- a9h74j 5y agoLate edit: 1) bold and capitalize 'allegedly' above; 2) in the response linked in a comment below, on p.2 lines 7-8, Meta claims the [fact check] labels constitute protected opinion; 3) it could easily be a libel non-case, especially as it is Stossel. My impression is that Meta's distancing move ("third party" fact-checkers, with label/pointer linkage) is more solid than a claim, say, "I am merely the owner of the safe and the combination, your Honor, not the contents themselves." However, if someone such as Stossel wants to pierce the veil with regard to 230, so to speak, it seems a good question whether a prominently linked "fact check" has the same ontological/moral status as any uninvited third party post.
- cronix 5y agoIt's basically the same road the NYT is doing in the Project Veritas defamation lawsuit. NYT is also used as a source by other "fact checkers," including Facebook. NYT admits they published opinion as fact in a factual A1 page news story. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mbkd2yll14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mbkd2yll14
- hcrean 5y agoThey should sue the fact checker rather than Facebook; easier and this will likely have the same impact on the fact-checker market.
- xondono 5y agoThey sued both Facebook and the fact checker.
- BrazzVuvuzela 5y agoFact checkers fear being fact checked, is anybody surprised?