Fact Check this

[Gadianton]

It’s true. I saw a picture on the web of this just a few seconds ago.

I signed an affidavit about it.

Can we get a video of you talking about all this so we have proof?

[canpakes]

It’s true. I saw a picture on the web of this just a few seconds ago.

I signed an affidavit about it.

Can we get a video of you talking about all this so we have proof?

Done.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7h767n_gaCc

[Bret Ripley]

It’s true. I saw a picture on the web of this just a few seconds ago.

I signed an affidavit about it.

Can we get a video of you talking about all this so we have proof?

Even better: I saw an unmarked van stuffed full of affidavits* which could mean several thousand additional pieces of stone cold evidence.

* Probably.

[Gadianton]

Even better: I saw an unmarked van stuffed full of affidavits* which could mean several thousand additional pieces of stone cold evidence.

Can I get a video of you alleging this so that we have hard proof?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Even better: I saw an unmarked van stuffed full of affidavits* which could mean several thousand additional pieces of stone cold evidence.

Can I get a video of you alleging this so that we have hard proof?

I just tweeted out that an eye witness said he saw a van full of stuffed ballots was seen driving away from the tolling station. It’s gone viral. 11,000,000 re-tweets!

- Doc

[subgenius]

Dr. Exiled, unless you are willing to embrace Postmodernism and declare that there is no truth —only stories, I don’t think what you say makes sense.

If fact checkers are genuinely committed to researching and reporting the facts, why would we expect an infinite series of fact checkers arriving at opposite conclusions?

And why would you try to spin the issue as me “picking fact checkers that I “like.” I “like” fact checkers who reliably research and present the relevant facts. If you don’t believe that “facts” exist, then, sure, saying Jews gassed Germans in the Holocaust is just as true as saying Germans based Jews. But if you believe that facts exist and that facts matter, it’s become pretty clear that giving everyone a microphone and letting them say whatever pops into their heads results in the facts ending up buried under tons of BS.

As I’ve previously argued, we already criminally punish people for false speech. Suggesting that any change of the boundary between protected false speech and unprotected false speech will be disastrous is an overreaction.

Friday, the President of the USA and his advisors had a serious discussion about declaring martial law as means of overturning an election. How did we get here? Because Trump, Powell, Guliani, Lin Wood, etc. know they can lie without consequence. Perversely, they may even be rewarded for lying. That’s where “the remedy for bad speech “ has led us to.

Look, I see millions of knee jerk reactions from folks on the left that demand extreme measures in response to the lying. I’m not on board with that. And, as I’ve told you, the position you take is what I’ve advocated all my life. But I’m also pragmatic enough to recognize when something I believe isn’t working. And when that happens, it’s better to seriously think about how to solve the problem than cling to an ideological position that places us in actual danger.

so, yes for the rights to privatize censorship from you - at least we agree on something.
Yet, that was no the inquiry of the OP - what is the influence within social media?
Why is a fact checker even getting traction on a platform like Facebook?
Is it realistic to consider Facebook as a valid source for "facts" within the paradigm of "fact checkers"?
Who is the fact checker at your dinner parties?

[subgenius]

...

If you don't like my example, why not provide your own?

All Snopes does is cite sources as a means to "fact check" - which is fair enough, but again...the question in the OP remains. This isn't about how a chemistry textbook is fact checked (which it is), but rather it is how fact checking has emerged in social media and what that implicates.
I am not sure what you are trying to establish in that vein.

[Icarus]

...

If you don't like my example, why not provide your own?

All Snopes does is cite sources as a means to "fact check" - which is fair enough, but again...the question in the OP remains. This isn't about how a chemistry textbook is fact checked (which it is), but rather it is how fact checking has emerged in social media and what that implicates.
I am not sure what you are trying to establish in that vein.

Fact checking became more necessary in the world of post-Truth Trumpism.

[canpakes]

Why is a fact checker even getting traction on a platform like Facebook?
Is it realistic to consider Facebook as a valid source for "facts" within the paradigm of "fact checkers"?

If the folks at Facebook are beginning to understand that they are being seen as the ‘source’ of disinformation (even though they aren’t technically anything more than the amplifier), then they could take a vested interest in countering disinformation as they interpret it, if they believe that failing to do so could damage their business model.

Obviously, that would not be the case for, say, Parler, or any other social media for which the business model benefited from the dispersal of disinformation.

[Some Schmo]

Oh my GOD. Donald J. Trump just died.



What. The. “F”?????

- Doc

Seeing this makes me feel good about my own skepticism. If there was ever anything I truly wanted to believe, it's this.

But I don't, because we'd have more than one source for it if it were true. Shame.