OP mentions "social media" platform specifically and i think its reasonable to consider that factcheck.org (2003) which is a subsidiary of Zuckerberg qualifies as "modern time". Also, its a bit obvious that Facebook was an example, social media has been "fact checked" for +10 years, as you admitted.Gadianton wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 7:39 pmHold 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?subgenius wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 4:44 pmEveryone 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?
Its not such a broad philosophical question. In fact, its way simple. How do you, yes you, ascertain confidence in something you see has been fact checked.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?
Its social media, not academia.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.?
settle down.
This isn't a meta debate on knowledge, its more of an exploration on the influence and/or meaning of fact checkers on social media platforms...see also OP.The meta discussion is more complicated than a debate over knowledge. I'll start a new thread on that.
You werent discussing anything, you were simply dismissing the topic as being to complicated for you and then set forth attacking the messenger.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.
This much is known and this much is a fact.