Fact Check this

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

aRe yOu fAcT cHeCkInG mE????

- Doc

[subgenius]

compare and contrast:

A new law set to be passed in Poland would fine social media companies $2.2 million a pop for censoring lawful free speech.

...
The UK is set to introduce an “Online Safety Bill” that threatens social media platforms with fines up to $24 million for failing “to protect users or remove harmful content.”

[subgenius]

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.

You are not smart.

[subgenius]

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.

Cool story.
can you follow up with something relevant to the OP?

[canpakes]

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.

Cool story.
can you follow up with something relevant to the OP?

You asked, “Why is a fact checker even getting traction on a platform like Facebook?”

Your senility seems to be worsening. : D

[Gadianton]

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.

Let me ask you this: Should Facebook allow fraudulent product advertisements? Should it allow illegal products and services to be advertised? shouldn't they just put up a disclaimer?

For online fraud or illegal markets to become resilient, they must nuance into a chain of deniability, where every link in the chain has a reasonable defense for its part in the program. There is a fine line between disinformation and fraud, and we'll see if your pal Sidney has discovered that line in the near future, but more importantly, disinformation spreads in the same fashion, where each link in the chain has deniability. When real world consequences are happening, such as people dying unnecessarily in part thanks to disinformation about Covid, platforms like Facebook are stuck trying to weigh short term and long term benefits.

The main point I want to drive home about Facebook is that they are two parts enlightened California liberals, and eight parts greedy capitalists like everyone else. Facebook is getting blamed for significantly "amplifying" (to use canpakes term) misinformation. You want to know "how fact checking has emerged" from Facebook, it's not out of their love for the truth, but out of business pressures that come from a range of forces starting with public perception and ending with legal liability.

Here is Facebook's response to The Social Dilemma:

https://about.Facebook.com/wp-content/uploads ... -Wrong.pdf

Look at how desperate they get in their defenses in places "we've acknowledged mistakes but we're doing better!!". I don't care if they are right and wrong for the purpose of this post. The purpose of this post is to answer your question about how fact checking has emerged, and their response to this documentary is exhibit A, showing how fact checking has emerged on Facebook. That is not to say this is where fact checking originated, they boast about their half-assed attempts in the past. But now there's more pressure.

[Res Ipsa]

The emergence of fact checking on social media is a natural response to people who prey on others through the dissemination of false information. Given the ability to fact check the fact checking, the implication is that harm will be reduced from those who knowingly weaponize false information for profit or power.

[Bret Ripley]

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've prepared an affidavit stating that I really really (really really really) believe it possible that one of the affidavits in the unmarked van is a sworn statement indicating that a video of me making these allegations is stored in the very same unmarked van, which (as has been suggested by #ZelphAnon) may at this very moment be parked in the basement of the Alamo. I guarantee you won't hear about *that* from the lamestream media.

[Res Ipsa]

The question Sub should ask is: why does Newsmax not have a fact checkers until it is threatened with a lawsuit?

[Chap]

The emergence of fact checking on social media is a natural response to people who prey on others through the dissemination of false information. Given the ability to fact check the fact checking, the implication is that harm will be reduced from those who knowingly weaponize false information for profit or power.

Well, having read that, one asks ... what more needs to be said on the subject?

The only people with a reason to be upset about fact checking are those who think that baseless or wrong statements have the same rights to respect in the public square as evidence-based true statements.