Facebook claims its ‘fact-checks’ are ‘opinion’
nypost.com
nypost.com
However, Section 230 says nothing about liability for your own content.
When Facebook says "we're banning that content because it's not factual", most of us would interpret that as "Facebook says that's a lie and the people saying it are liars." That's open to a defamation claim. That's what Facebook is trying to head off with "they're not fact-checks, they're opinions."
The objective world cannot exist, everything is filtered by our own perception
The universe is a simulation running in our brains
-- Facebook's defense, probably
(IANAL. Can anyone answer this question: If in lawsuit A you claim X, do you get in trouble if later in lawsuit B you claim not-X?)
If you claim X, but the court adjudicated that Not-X is true, then you can build off the fact that Not-X was adjudicated. It doesn’t matter if you claimed X at one point
My question was more about when X was not adjudicated in case A. Do you get to claim the opposite in a different case? Or are you bound by your claims?
You are certainly not bound to keep claiming X though. I mean, there's such a thing as new information and research. If 10 years ago you claimed X, and the latest science is different now, then I don't think a proper judge or arbitrator would hold that against you. They will weigh the evidence provided at the time of the argument for the claim.
Of course it's gonna look bad if there were no significant events or it happened a week ago.
But that's only going to be considered if the counter-party even brings it up as an argument. There's a host of reason they may not choose to argue on that platform, not to mention in many situations there's no way to find out. Certainly if it's taking place in private arbitration, different counter-parties aren't going to know the arguments you claimed in different cases.