>But that doesn't mean the status quo is particularly satisfying. It's good that the fact-checker reversed course in my case, but needless to say, Facebook shou

>But that doesn't mean the status quo is particularly satisfying. It's good that the fact-checker reversed course in my case, but needless to say, Facebook should revisit its formal, contractual relationship with an organization that routinely misquotes the people it scrutinizes. The problem is that Facebook is using fact checkers as a crutch to deal with the problem that... 1. They have a monopoly on the attention of gullible old people 2. As a result of this, anyone who wants to exploit said demographic goes through them The easiest way to actually fix the problem of gullible old people would be to just ban them from the platform so everyone else can enjoy their free speech[0] in peace. Instead, Facebook deliberately targets them. This is not limited to fake news, misinformation, or right-wing political screeds that you might disagree with; they are also one of the biggest platforms for scammers to sell fake products to that same group of people. Facebook, like everything else these days, optimizes for "whales" with high value to the business, and that just so happens to be gullibility. Fact checking in this sense is like the "drink responsibly" they whisper at the end of a beer ad. It's not for actual safety, it's to have something to throw at critics during a crisis. [0] "Free speech" in this context refers to a private platform, not the government. Yes, this is a slightly different definition and Facebook isn't bound by the 1st Amendment.