4 ms·

But "fact-checking" by people in authority is OK? Isn't that like, authoritarian? "Fact-checking" completely removed the ability for debate and is therefore a

But "fact-checking" by people in authority is OK? Isn't that like, authoritarian? "Fact-checking" completely removed the ability for debate and is therefore antithetical to a functional democracy. Pushing back against authority, because they are often dead wrong, is foundational to a free society. It's hard to imagine anything more authoritarian than "No I don't have to debate because I'm a fact-checker and by that measure alone you're wrong and I'm right". Very Orwellian indeed! Additionally, the number of times that I've observed "fact-checkers" lying thru their teeth for obvious political reasons is absurd.

kmoser 2y ago
Without some sort of controls in place, fact-checking becomes useless because it's subject to being gamed by those with the most time on their hands and/or malicious tools, e.g. bots and sock puppets.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
> But "fact-checking" by people in authority is OK? it's by third-party journalism organizations, not Meta employees, so not "people in authority"
- coolhand2120 2y ago
  They are given the title of fact checker, ending debate, this is the authoritarian part. It does not matter who employs them. If fact checkers were angels we wouldn’t have this problem. However fact checkers are subject to human nature just like the rest of us, to be biased, wrong, etc.. Do you think these fact checkers don’t have their own opinions? Do you think they don’t vote? Don’t lie?
flawn 2y ago
You are assuming the people in social media are a representative cut of people in the society but what you will notice quickly is that this is not the case, just look at echo chambers. If I am trying to debate the same fact on a far-right or far-left post, undoubtedly both will come up with the same discussion and conclusion - let's not lie to ourselves. So for your claim to have any validity the requirement of a fair, unbiased group of people on all posts would need to be given (in the first instance, there are a lot more issues with this, just look at the loud people versus the ones not bothering anymore to comment as discussing seems impossible) and that is just de facto not the case and the reason fact-checking is indeed helpful.

kmoser 2y ago

Without some sort of controls in place, fact-checking becomes useless because it's subject to being gamed by those with the most time on their hands and/or malicious tools, e.g. bots and sock puppets.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

> But "fact-checking" by people in authority is OK? it's by third-party journalism organizations, not Meta employees, so not "people in authority"

coolhand2120 2y ago
They are given the title of fact checker, ending debate, this is the authoritarian part. It does not matter who employs them. If fact checkers were angels we wouldn’t have this problem. However fact checkers are subject to human nature just like the rest of us, to be biased, wrong, etc.. Do you think these fact checkers don’t have their own opinions? Do you think they don’t vote? Don’t lie?

flawn 2y ago

You are assuming the people in social media are a representative cut of people in the society but what you will notice quickly is that this is not the case, just look at echo chambers. If I am trying to debate the same fact on a far-right or far-left post, undoubtedly both will come up with the same discussion and conclusion - let's not lie to ourselves. So for your claim to have any validity the requirement of a fair, unbiased group of people on all posts would need to be given (in the first instance, there are a lot more issues with this, just look at the loud people versus the ones not bothering anymore to comment as discussing seems impossible) and that is just de facto not the case and the reason fact-checking is indeed helpful.