Donal Trump was actually not topmost liar at the time of sampling, but only 2nd place. Color me surprised.
https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/items/8f9a6f3b-efd7-46f3-b4be...
You may be aligned with the alleged or real partisanship of Politifact, so to you there's no problem here. But team Harris and Buttigieg lost the election.
Hence these consequences (from Wikipedia):
In January 2025, Mark Zuckerberg announced an end to Meta's eight-year partnership with PolitiFact, claiming that "fact checkers have just been too politically biased."[62][63
Consider an alternative framing, "fact checkers like Politifact are precisely what are considered UNbiased". It is at least as true (because at least 2 people consider it to be so).
Given that framing alternative to yours: what, if anything, should we do anything about the situation?
How do you think framing, rather than substance, affects that discussion?
> The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.
The play book is:
1. Set an impossible standard (an undefined "unbiased" fact checker)
2. When impossible standard cannot be reached, throw toys out of the pram
Meanwhile, egregious levels of bullshit now go unchallenged.
Somehow our whole society has fallen for the “unless you can point to a perfect saint who has never done any wrong, we might as well be led by active criminals” pitch. It’s so nihilistic.
No relationship with the fact that Trump became president again in Jan 2025 with Zuckerberg giving money to his inauguration, obviously.
The distribution also leaves out the significance and the reach of the statements.
Your statement is about as meaningful as the "fastest growing <whatever>" trick. E.g. growing from 0->1 user is infinite growth, so wins fastest growing immediately.