> This reads like you are moving the goalpost. I do not have to dis- or agree with the article. I have to trust the fact checkers actually check facts. Alas, I

> This reads like you are moving the goalpost. I do not have to dis- or agree with the article. I have to trust the fact checkers actually check facts. Alas, I cannot. How could one trust and rely on fact-checkers that "fact-check" comedy, satire, and similar sites? This reads like you are, in fact, moving the goalposts. While I respect you as a person, you don't have to do anything. What you personally do or don't do, trust or don't trust, doesn't affect whether the fact-check was correct or not. Your goodness and value as a person notwithstanding, 1 person distrusting something is both negligible and ignorable in the grand scheme of things. On the other hand, if there were data saying a significant majority of people share your views that a particular source's fact-checks are actually counter-factual, then there might be reason to discuss it as an issue*. How many others believe that a fact-checking source need to be a polymath to view videos and verify that the president said something in their speech? tl;dr: Are we sure there is actually a problem that needs solving here? Let's fact-check that. There totally could be, I'm just a fan of letting data do the talking. * - Wikipedia does a good job, in my opinion, of litigating such concerns of source reliability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources)