The only way they would reveal this is if they were about to be hung for something they lied about.
The only way they would reveal this is if they were about to be hung for something they lied about.
The more you know.
Popular political commentator John Stossel wrote an op-ed for the New York Post in which he discussed a revelation discovered after he sued the company for defamation.
The libertarian-minded commentator has expressed his personal belief both in this article and in the past that “Facebook is a private company, so it can censor whomever it wants,” but has emphatically stated opposition to their usage of the “fact-check” mechanism. Stossel argued that such claims made by Facebook can be defamatory, as they make an authoritative statement of ‘objective fact’ that is often false in reality.
“Recently, I sued them because they defamed me,” Stossel wrote. “They, along with one of their “fact-checkers,” a group called Science Feedback, lied about me and continue to lie about me.”
Stossel then revealed that the social media network tried to skirt responsibility for the arguably slanderous statements by arguing in court that their “fact-checks” actually aren’t based on an objective metric at all.
“Amazingly, their lawyers now claim that Facebook’s “fact-checks” are merely “opinion” and therefore immune from defamation.“
“That’s how Facebook portrays them on its website: ‘Each time a fact-checker rates a piece of content as false, Facebook significantly reduces the content’s distribution … We … apply a warning label that links to the fact-checker’s article, disproving the claim.'”
>The more you know.
Popular political commentator John Stossel wrote an op-ed for the New York Post in which he discussed a revelation discovered after he sued the company for defamation.
The libertarian-minded commentator has expressed his personal belief both in this article and in the past that “Facebook is a private company, so it can censor whomever it wants,” but has emphatically stated opposition to their usage of the “fact-check” mechanism. Stossel argued that such claims made by Facebook can be defamatory, as they make an authoritative statement of ‘objective fact’ that is often false in reality.
“Recently, I sued them because they defamed me,” Stossel wrote. “They, along with one of their “fact-checkers,” a group called Science Feedback, lied about me and continue to lie about me.”
Stossel then revealed that the social media network tried to skirt responsibility for the arguably slanderous statements by arguing in court that their “fact-checks” actually aren’t based on an objective metric at all.
“Amazingly, their lawyers now claim that Facebook’s “fact-checks” are merely “opinion” and therefore immune from defamation.“
“That’s how Facebook portrays them on its website: ‘Each time a fact-checker rates a piece of content as false, Facebook significantly reduces the content’s distribution … We … apply a warning label that links to the fact-checker’s article, disproving the claim.'”
(post is archived)