Fact Check this

[subgenius]

Everyone is undoubtedly familiar with the modern day prevalence of "fact checkers" in and around social media. While we would be hard pressed to find such a thing in the media of days gone by, there is a certain "acceptance" of these things today.
But why?
What qualifies anyone or anything to be a "fact checker" online?
nothing, that's what.
I propose that online "fact checking" is nothing more than censorship and a deliberate control of information.
Do not misunderstand my point, i favor a private entity's right to censor/control/curate information on its own turf(eg, this board)

But is "fact checking" not a satirical concept/branding for a site like Facebook? which is a platform, not a publisher.

And to what end do you qualify something as being "fact checked" online? Does it simply have to cite a source which you find more agreeable than others?(eg msnbc vs Fox)

So, to expand the question - what value and liability is there with the presence of "fact checkers" online? Is there a time/place for them? or will their presence eventually oversaturate the market and render them meaningless?

[Dr Exiled]

This is why I think the answer to what people perceive as bad speech is more speech. Fact check the self-proclaimed fact checkers and fact check those who want to fact check the fact checkers and so on. Those who left the church didn't appreciate how the church overused the anti-Mormon label in an attempt to dissuade inquisitive members from finding out the truth. The same controlling behavior over speech can certainly happen in other areas and not just in the Mormon realm. We don't need net nannies from Facebook or Twitter or google. The beauty of the internet, at least when it was first being sold, was as a platform for free and unencumbered speech, where anyone could say something intelligent and enlightening or idiotic or somewhere in between. Now, we have these entities putting their thumb on speech they deem unworthy in an attempt at forcing a narrative on everyone. I know that as long as there is agreement in the narrative, people here will love the attempts at squashing unworthy speech. But, like anything, the tide can and does turn and those favored by the few at the top can suddenly be disfavored.

[honorentheos]

Journalistic practice required a professional commitment to fact check before reporting.

Report before fact checking? See the fact checking outsourced.

[canpakes]

Person A:
:: seeks to spread dishonest information ::

Person B:
:: fact-checks Person A and/or provides additional, more complete or fact-based information ::

Person A:
“I’m being censored..!!1!”

[Res Ipsa]

This is why I think the answer to what people perceive as bad speech is more speech. Fact check the self-proclaimed fact checkers and fact check those who want to fact check the fact checkers and so on. Those who left the church didn't appreciate how the church overused the anti-Mormon label in an attempt to dissuade inquisitive members from finding out the truth. The same controlling behavior over speech can certainly happen in other areas and not just in the Mormon realm. We don't need net nannies from Facebook or Twitter or google. The beauty of the internet, at least when it was first being sold, was as a platform for free and unencumbered speech, where anyone could say something intelligent and enlightening or idiotic or somewhere in between. Now, we have these entities putting their thumb on speech they deem unworthy in an attempt at forcing a narrative on everyone. I know that as long as there is agreement in the narrative, people here will love the attempts at squashing unworthy speech. But, like anything, the tide can and does turn and those favored by the few at the top can suddenly be disfavored.

You are living in a real time demonstration of how BS can and now does completely overwhelm the truth. The internet is not living up to its original promise because of poor assumptions about people and how their brains work. True speech cannot keep up with false speech. And false speech is proving remarkably effective at shutting down and intimidating true speech through harassment and threats of out and out violence.

What your vigorous defense of false speech will lead to is an authoritarian regime under which you will have no free speech at all.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

That’s why I can’t even Twitter and most media platforms’ comments sections. You have to have long form discussions with good faith participants in order to get to the nuts and bolts of a problem, and then build out a solution from there.

Most people aren’t interested or don’t have the faculties to do so. That’s why churches and politicians excel.

- Doc

[Gadianton]

Everyone is undoubtedly familiar with the modern day prevalence of "fact checkers" in and around social media. While we would be hard pressed to find such a thing in the media of days gone by, there is a certain "acceptance" of these things today.
But why?
What qualifies anyone or anything to be a "fact checker" online?
nothing, that's what.
I propose that online "fact checking" is nothing more than censorship and a deliberate control of information.
Do not misunderstand my point, i favor a private entity's right to censor/control/curate information on its own turf(eg, this board)

But is "fact checking" not a satirical concept/branding for a site like Facebook? which is a platform, not a publisher.

And to what end do you qualify something as being "fact checked" online? Does it simply have to cite a source which you find more agreeable than others?(eg msnbc vs Fox)

So, to expand the question - what value and liability is there with the presence of "fact checkers" online? Is there a time/place for them? or will their presence eventually oversaturate the market and render them meaningless?

Hold on here, subs, first of all, for how long has Facebook been a "fact checker"? The "modern day prevalence" of fact checking is like, the last six months? Less?

I think a better example is Snopes, which has been around a while. You're trying -- and to a lesser extent Dr. E is also trying -- to have a meta discussion about fact checking. How can we know anything at all? If we can't solve the problem of knowledge; how do we really know what we think we know is true?, then how can we ever silence an opposing voice as literally any idea at any time could be wrong?

Why should we trust Chemistry textbooks? It's possible that Chemistry is just a hoax. How can we really be sure? Should we allow every alternative explanation equal playing time in the classroom? Flat earth etc.?

The meta discussion is more complicated than a debate over knowledge. I'll start a new thread on that.

Using Snopes as an example of a real-world problem subs asks about, I have yet to have my right-wing friend contest any of the stupid right-wing nonsense emails he sends me when I cite Snopes as the authority. Why is that? Because there is no competition. The subs / Ajax world of stupid ideas literally has no competing source to Snopes. What they have is meme power, and the ability to get millions of people reciting the same things as if its common knowledge, without any sources. I'll say it again: There is no right-wing competitor to Snopes. So the discussion is over.

A real-world example to show my point.

The Scytl server raid.

Here is the NewsMax article:

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/cia-c ... d/1000092/

I will highlight the most important points for subs to consider:

CIA spokesperson Nicole de Haay told Reuters via email
Reuters Fact Check previously debunked this claim.
One screenshot was posted by Rumor Mill News on Nov. 30. Reuters

There you have it, subs, if it's something they've really got to nip in the bud, then okay, trust a real news source, Reuters.

But what if Reuters is lying also?

Where do I find the alternative version of a fact-check on the scytl server raid, Dr. Exiled, that must also be heard?

My QAnon neighbor who confronted me insisted I research the Scytl server raid on DuckDuckGo, where they don't censor content (...but how do we really know that?). So I did. I have yet to find any site on the "dark web" border territory with a right-wing version of a fact check on the incident, that supports it. Most of these gutter sources themselves won't even commit to it, they copy and paste text and without any sourcing at all. Some say nothing, others claim no responsibility for third-party sources, some of them give their reasons for it making sense in their minds, others link to youtube videos where God-honest Christians fly off the deep end in speculation, but none of them even provided a tangible source for where the text they quotes originated. 1 minute on Snopes, an hour or so on DuckDuckGo looking for an alternative. Snopes found a trail back to "Rumor Mill News" and from there a "Q-drop". The gray-web sources? Oddly didn't even give Q credit.

Before we can compare mainstream fact-checking with right-wing-friendly fact-checking, the right-wing-friendly version of fact-checking has to exist somewhere.

Others can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I did look up a select few topics on NewsMax the other day, to get their take, and I didn't see any effort trying to substantiate any of it. It was more like, here is front-center stage for the latest crazy from Sidney Powell, but no effort to get to the bottom of any of it, just relay the outlandish things those on their team are saying.

[Res Ipsa]

Everyone is undoubtedly familiar with the modern day prevalence of "fact checkers" in and around social media. While we would be hard pressed to find such a thing in the media of days gone by, there is a certain "acceptance" of these things today.
But why?
What qualifies anyone or anything to be a "fact checker" online?
nothing, that's what.
I propose that online "fact checking" is nothing more than censorship and a deliberate control of information.
Do not misunderstand my point, i favor a private entity's right to censor/control/curate information on its own turf(eg, this board)

But is "fact checking" not a satirical concept/branding for a site like Facebook? which is a platform, not a publisher.

And to what end do you qualify something as being "fact checked" online? Does it simply have to cite a source which you find more agreeable than others?(eg msnbc vs Fox)

So, to expand the question - what value and liability is there with the presence of "fact checkers" online? Is there a time/place for them? or will their presence eventually oversaturate the market and render them meaningless?

Well of course you don’t like fact checkers, Sub. You have no respect for the difference between fact and fiction. You’re the guys who has been caught hundreds of times position out and out lies here. And how do we know? Because people fact check the crap out of you.

You don’t like fact checkers? I’ll tell you how to get rid of them. By checking your own damn facts instead of vomiting your false and misleading crap all over the board. Fact checking should be a personal responsibility that people take seriously. They should take the time effort and effort to make sure that what they communicate is true. But like you, great numbers of people just regurgitate something they see or that somebody spams on Facebook.

What you do here is totally dishonest and morally indefensible. And, as you seem to take pride in spreading BS, people who are willing to take the time to do the research will continue to fact check you and unmask your dishonest attempts to mislead. And as long as we have a leader like Trump for whom lying is as natural as breathing, we’ll continue to have fact checkers to help people who are interested in the truth navigate through all the BS.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Conservatives don't like news outlets like CNN because they assume, naturally, they're lying out their teeth like... they do. Why wouldn't they have contempt for fact checkers when they themselves are lying sacks of crap? Tweet tweet tweet!

- Doc

[Dr Exiled]

This is why I think the answer to what people perceive as bad speech is more speech. Fact check the self-proclaimed fact checkers and fact check those who want to fact check the fact checkers and so on. Those who left the church didn't appreciate how the church overused the anti-Mormon label in an attempt to dissuade inquisitive members from finding out the truth. The same controlling behavior over speech can certainly happen in other areas and not just in the Mormon realm. We don't need net nannies from Facebook or Twitter or google. The beauty of the internet, at least when it was first being sold, was as a platform for free and unencumbered speech, where anyone could say something intelligent and enlightening or idiotic or somewhere in between. Now, we have these entities putting their thumb on speech they deem unworthy in an attempt at forcing a narrative on everyone. I know that as long as there is agreement in the narrative, people here will love the attempts at squashing unworthy speech. But, like anything, the tide can and does turn and those favored by the few at the top can suddenly be disfavored.

You are living in a real time demonstration of how BS can and now does completely overwhelm the truth. The internet is not living up to its original promise because of poor assumptions about people and how their brains work. True speech cannot keep up with false speech. And false speech is proving remarkably effective at shutting down and intimidating true speech through harassment and threats of out and out violence.

What your vigorous defense of false speech will lead to is an authoritarian regime under which you will have no free speech at all.

So, go ahead and have the fact checkers, don't stop there and have an environment where anyone can fact check anyone else. Also, I don't see how arbitrarily limiting speech that you don't like will somehow prevent an authoritarian regime. Are you advocating going farther than merely having fact checkers you like and not allowing people to speak about subjects you don't like or advocate for positions you don't like? Are you advocating for prohibiting people who like Trump from speaking? If so, don't you think that this would cause the very authoritarian regime you are against?