[HN Gopher] In court filing, Facebook admits 'fact checks' are n...
___________________________________________________________________
In court filing, Facebook admits 'fact checks' are nothing more
than opinion
Author : rmason
Score : 43 points
Date : 2021-12-10 20:52 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (wattsupwiththat.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (wattsupwiththat.com)
| scotuswroteus wrote:
| admits that FACEBOOK'S fact checks are nothing more than opinion.
| Facebook isn't an arbiter of that question in the more general
| sense.
| Minor49er wrote:
| I didn't realize that this was prompted by Facebook labeling
| information that John Stossel posted as "false and misleading". I
| found a post with his side of it:
|
| https://www.thenews-messenger.com/story/opinion/2021/10/02/j...
| xupybd wrote:
| I don't always agree with John Stossel but he appears to have a
| lot of integrity. I can't say that about many reporters these
| days.
|
| I'm glad he is standing up to this.
| decremental wrote:
| You'd think this would be a huge scandal. I'm surprised by the
| relatively muted response on this forum/website.
| baash05 wrote:
| This feels like that 100% beef thing that McDonalds was rumoured
| to have done. (Urban legend) We Fact Checked (tm) I think they
| should be held to account, if they're slapping that label on
| things.
| ErikCorry wrote:
| My guess as a legal amateur: If it's opinion, then Facebook's
| actions are protected by the First Amendment. So while they may
| not internally view it as "nothing more than opinion" they are
| willing to argue this in court. Everyone likes to win their court
| cases.
|
| This is part of a defamation case. Defamation cases are hard to
| win in the US because of the First Amendment.
| beerandt wrote:
| It's a little bit different here since there's an actual
| editorial response, and not just removal or similar.
|
| The whole reason facebook has 3rd parties do the factchecks is
| so it can claim that it _isn 't_ responsible for the factcheck
| content.
|
| They're basically trying to game the system to get all the
| benefits of a platform (waived liability), while still
| exercising editorial opinions as if a publisher, even if it's
| by way of selecting which 3rd parties it defers this defacto
| editorial power to.
|
| I think if they wanted to claim freespeech here, it would
| amount to an (at least partial) admission that they are
| responsible for the content, which afaiu _would_ make them
| subject to libel.
|
| It's more or less a reinvention of what was attempted with
| "company towns", obviously with some significant differences.
| krapp wrote:
| >They're basically trying to game the system to get all the
| benefits of a platform (waived liability), while still
| exercising editorial opinions as if a publisher.
|
| Sigh.
|
| Section 230 makes no distinction between "platform" and
| "publisher" in regards to liability or editorial options.
| Sites have always been allowed to make "editorial opinions"
| while maintaining that protection. Platforms do not have to
| be neutral, nor do they lose their liability protection if
| they cease to be neutral in their moderation decisions.
|
| They're not gaming the system, that is the system working as
| intended.
|
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-
| platform-...
|
| https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello.
| ..
| jjeaff wrote:
| It seems to me the problem they have is trying to outsource the
| fact checking while sort of implying the fact check is either the
| official stance of Facebook or done by Facebook themselves.
|
| It seems like this could be avoided by alternate wording for
| their fact check. If I remember correctly, they flag articles
| with something like "false or misleading".
|
| Perhaps they should simply flag them with, "This post may be
| false or misleading, please review the following sources that
| claim this article is false or misleading"
|
| But the problem with all of this boils down to the fact that a
| very large number of people don't just get their news from
| Facebook, they get it from the headlines of articles posted to
| Facebook. I don't know what percentage of people actually read
| the articles before forming an opinion, but it must be
| exceedingly low.
|
| I have had many conversations with people on Facebook that will
| post articles they think prove them right because of the headline
| when in fact, the article will very nearly be the complete
| opposite of what the headline implies.
|
| The same even does for lots of videos. It seems people have even
| stopped watching the videos before they repost.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-10 23:01 UTC)