Facebook Quietly Admits Its Third-Party ‘Fact-Checks’ Are ‘Opinions’ – The Federalist

Facebook admitted that its so-called fact-checking program is actually cranking out opinions used to censor certain viewpoints.

In its latest legal battle with TV journalist John Stossel over a post about the origins of the deadly 2020 California forest fires, Facebook, now rebranded and referred to as Meta, claims that its fact-checking program should not be the target of a defamation suit because its attempts to regulate content are done by third-party organizations who are entitled to their opinion.

Stossels original complaint questioned whether Facebook and its vendors defame a user who posts factually accurate content, when they publicly announce that the content failed a fact-check and is partly false, and by attributing to the user a false claim that he never made? Facebook, however, claimed that the counter article authored by Climate Feedback is not necessarily the tech giants responsibility.

Facebook went on to complain that Stossels problem isnt with the Silicon Valley giants labels on his content but with the obscure organizations that Facebook employs to do its fact-checking dirty work.

The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion, Facebook admitted. And even if Stossel could attribute Climate Feedbacks separate webpages to Meta, the challenged statements on those pages are likewise neither false nor defamatory. Any of these failures would doom Stossels complaint, but the combination makes any amendment futile.

Its no secret that Facebook uses its fact-checking program to curb information that it wants to be censored, and this November lawsuit gives more insight into the Big Tech companys methods and twisted rationale.

The independence of the fact checkers is a deliberate feature of Metas fact-checking program, designed to ensure that Meta does not become the arbiter of truth on its platforms, the lawsuit stated before admitting that Meta identifies potential misinformation for fact-checkers to review and rate. [I]t leaves the ultimate determination whether information is false or misleading to the fact-checkers. And though Meta has designed its platforms so that fact-checker ratings appear next to content that the fact-checkers have reviewed and rated, it does not contribute to the substance of those ratings.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Continued here:

Facebook Quietly Admits Its Third-Party 'Fact-Checks' Are 'Opinions' - The Federalist