Fact-checking and censorship are two very different things.
I think you also just proved my point that if HN users can't even get basic facts about an event right, how do you expect the average FB user to do so? Goes to show that even on HN "community noting" would be a disaster.
With Silicon-Valley people being in charge of "fact-checking" for the past decade there's been countless examples of them doing mass cancellations calling things lies that we all know ended up being true.
really? like what, exactly? please give concrete examples or this is just hot air
There was a long period where people were getting banned from Twitter and Meta platforms for posting (true) claims about the Hunter Biden laptop story (which was, of course, extremely politically consequential)
If you read the article you linked to, you find that 1) Twitter blocked tweets about the WP story, not banned users, and 2) they reversed that decision and unblocked the tweets 24 hours later as they realized their mistake.
Your attempt to minimise this as “people don’t care about a laptop” is either incredibly ignorant of this matter or deliberately misleading framing of the question.
They won't allow themselves to think it's important because that's an open admission (to themselves and others) of how thoroughly brainwashed they've become by trusting the MSM left-wing perspectives on every issue.
Great. I’m not sure why you think that’s relevant to this subject but I’m glad to know this happened, just as I am sure you would be if this had happened to you.
It was definitely real, it was mostly seen as a politicized fight.
I heard nominally credible commentators claim the laptop story was a "russian disinformation" campaign at least 50 different times.
Didnt people dismiss it initially, then change tune once it was confirmed? All the liberal sides knew it existed, they were mostly focused on the fact that the prosecution was being incredibly focused, which was out of the norm for how cases like that are typically punished.
But the OP did make a claim that "calling things lies that we all know ended up being true"
I challenged that with a request for actual examples. Feel free to link to them.
The act of not providing the evidence, is essentially a sign of not having an argument, and resorting to bluffs in the hope that people will take the emotions as facts.
But thats entirely self defeating - it reduces your argument to one about feels and vibes.
I always find this to be annoying, because I dont think people are so inaccurate.
You may well have evidence, and bringing it up makes the case.
And if you dont find evidence, then you improve your own argument. You end up checking and figuring out what made you hold that position.
It’s just a lost chance. And if people said they dont care to do this, then why the heck did they make the effort? You just lost your peace for no reason.
Asking people to list evidence for well known things is a well known troll-tactic, and often used as a way to deflect and redirect a discussion into the specifics of specific cases, especially when the main argument has nothing to do with any of the specific cases.
Be fair. You may be getting downvoted but I think that you are arguing in good faith.
If it helps. I’m not a troll.
There IS a norm where the person making the claim is expected to provide evidence the evidence.
If you asked me, I would have to get something to show you. (Do ask, if only it creates effort on my side to make it fair)
And I don’t think the issue here is whether cancel culture exists.
If you go through your comment chain, your original claim was that it was countless example, ie one of magnitude.
Based on that, you dismissed fact checking entirely.
Which is what people are basically responding to.
Not that cancel culture didn’t exist- but that it was mostly wrong.
And therefore - that fact checking is mostly wrong.
I also have seen fact checking in other countries other than America - it’s absolutely correct in many situations, but is still problematic because it’s unpopular.
"Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made (2021)"
It is not known to be true of course, but it always obviously a possibility.
IS this a reasonable expectation of fact checking?
I’m very curious now, I actually would love takes on this. I feel we are implying that the standards of fact checking validity weren’t met, but the standards haven’t been stated.
People regularly say “let me know the full facts, even if they aren’t confirmed.”
This is a common claim from people when it comes to medicine or nutrition, for example.
I think you can acknowledge that people have contradictory impulses - because you’ve experienced it.
All reporting on developing situations will be inaccurate, and yet people want it.
So how would you reconcile this? This need for the best effort information and the need for perfect information?
Removing Freedom of Speech is the first thing Tyrannical gov'ts do to control people. Look at what Trudeau tried to do to Canadians, and look at the UK also. People are now being put in JAIL for being rude online. Luckily conservatives all around the world are fed up and finally fighting back.
That’s from the Abram’s dissent.
Does it resonate with you?
There's a high probability that heavily influenced the presidential 2020 election outcome.
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/facebook-execs...