> A very good article It’s really not. spupe’s criticisms are spot-on. And with lines like the following, who could expect a real critique? “Fact-checking,

> A very good article It’s really not. spupe’s criticisms are spot-on. And with lines like the following, who could expect a real critique? “Fact-checking, far from the scientific pursuit of truth, has become a Trojan horse by which liberal elites can serve us all propaganda by disguising it as education.” I mean come on. I don’t think it’s intended to be taken seriously. > highlighting the bias and blindspots in these so-called 'fact-checkers' that have knowingly distorted and suppressed parts of the truth and slanting the opposing side with their own lies Where is that in the article? > the article precisely gives the answer to the question on 'who checks the fact checkers?'; it is each of us and it is up to us to call out the bias or blindspots with multiple counter-evidence. Go for it! I’d definitely be interested to read the counter-evidence. And I think so would everyone else who keeps hearing that fact-checking is, in actuality, a Trojan horse by which liberal elites can serve us all propaganda by disguising it as education.