In court filing, Facebook admits ‘fact checks’ are nothing more than opinion
wattsupwiththat.com
wattsupwiththat.com
https://www.thenews-messenger.com/story/opinion/2021/10/02/j...
I'm glad he is standing up to this.
This is part of a defamation case. Defamation cases are hard to win in the US because of the First Amendment.
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.
Now if they were defending themselves for _not_ removing something that was actually defamatory they might invoke section 230. 230 merely strengthens free speech by giving the platform some immunity wrt what their users write. It doesn't require them to be neutral in any way.
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...
However, there's nothing in Section 230 that protects "interactive computer services" wrt content that they produce.
In other words, Section 230 does NOT applyFacebook IS liable for content that it generates.
Why did only CNN, MSNBC, etc. get publicly humiliated by the Covington kid's lawyers when partisan "moderators" at Google and Facebook essentially posted the exact same libelous content (either directly or by just censoring / amplifying the posts of others)? Why have both Fox news (e.g. Tucker Carlson) and MSNBC (Rachel Maddow) had to spend millions defending themselves recently from defamation lawsuits, when Zuckerburg or Sundar Pichai could essentially make the EXACT same claims they did on their "platforms", yet be protected by this vague Section 230 shield?
It seems like the law has become a joke, where you're basically guaranteed protection if you're head-quartered in California and considered a "tech company," while older established companies have to play by a completely different set of rules, even if their business models are exactly the same (selling ads and narratives, propaganda dissemination, etc.)
All the people you mention, whether media or tech, are employees of their respective companies, so I wouldn't think any of them are protected by 230. They aren't third party content providers.
I don't understand where anything you mention represents a double standard. And you seem to be referring to hypotheticals with the leaders of Facebook and Google, so that makes it even more confusing.
But my layman's guess is that the case isn't as simple as "the law is a joke or else CNN/FOX etc. could be immune from all libel and defamation lawsuits." I'm assuming there's some subtlety involved that you're unaware of, otherwise those media companies are simply stupid for not seeing something so obvious. I'm sure I could do the research myself, find the answer and compose a response detailing, with sources and footnotes, the reason your interpretation of the law is in error, but my experience on this forum has shown me that such efforts quickly lead to diminishing returns, and I have better ways to spend my time.
Also, Section 230 isn't vague. You can find the text of it here[0]. It's quite simple and straightforward as these things go.
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.
I mean, they've reached comic book supervillain levels of evil as far as this forum is concerned. This kind of thing doesn't even swing the needle. "Oh, so Hitler was also a litterbug? Ed Gein also didn't wash his hands after using the bathroom? Ok..."
"Fact check" leads readers to the false conclusion that the data presented is... factual.
IANAL
In this case, Facebook said that labeling something as "missing context" as the _conclusion_ is an statement of opinion. This was not about ALL fact checks and not about the contents of facts in them. This site is deliberately misleading you to support climate change denial by claiming that it is.
What absolute rubbish which sounds like it comes from a complete zealot.
If you took the time to read the site, you'd find a plethora of insightful articles and information.
Just because a site may not show information one would like, doesn't necessarily make it faulty or misleading.
And lastly, using the phrase "climate denier" absolutely sounds like it comes from a closed-minded religious zealot rather than a rational individual.
No one denies climates all over the Earth changes. It does. What a lot of people a sceptical of and offer counter-arguments to is the claim that humans are responsible for it - or especially a trace gas comprising just 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere.