3 ms·
I'm interested in the eventual outcome of this case: > "This case presents a simple question: do Facebook and its vendors defame a user who posts factually acc
by djoldman 5y ago
I'm interested in the eventual outcome of this case:
> "This case presents a simple question: do Facebook and its vendors defame a user who posts factually accurate content, when they publicly announce that the content failed a 'fact-check' and is 'partly false,' and by attributing to the user a false claim that he never made?" wrote Stossel's attorneys in the lawsuit. "The answer, of course, is yes."
I hope there is no settlement if it proceeds.
- akersten 5y agoThe mental gymnastics to contort labelling of posts as defamation is so laughable. There's nothing defaming about "we had X group review this post and they found it was False." It doesn't matter if X group was incorrect in their assessment- what matters is that statement ("group reviewed and their finding was --") is purely true. That's not defamation of character (which would be "this poster is lying"), it's a true statement about an opinion that was reached ("fact checkers consider this article False information"). It's a subtle, but critical distinction. They don't have a case, IMO.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- djoldman 5y agoThe text generated and written by Facebook says: > False information next paragraph: > Checked by independent fact-checkers If you want to get to subtle and critical distinctions, a straightforward reading of the above is: "this is false information. the fact that it is false was checked by independent fact-checkers." A reasonable reading is that facebook labels the information as false and that that was *confirmed* by fact-checkers. If they mean to say: "fact checkers labeled this as false and so we are hiding this information" then they should say so plainly, no?