The opinions in guest opinion op-eds represent only the viewpoints of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect those of RedState.com.)
John Stossel is an outspoken libertarian journalist who was once a correspondent for ABC News. He has since become a major thorn in Facebook’s side.
Stossel, who currently produces weekly videos on social media challenging big government idolatry and commonly held assumptions about topics such as climate change, has managed to unveil the farce that is Facebook’s “fact check” scheme.
The story began when Stossel posted a video to Facebook titled “Government Fueled Fires.” In the video, Stossel said, “[W]hile climate change undoubtedly contributes to forest fires, it was not the primary cause of the 2020 California fires.”
Stossel argued that the main cause of wildfires was government mismanagement. Stossel also presented numerous facts supporting his claim.
After the video was posted, Facebook categorized it as “misleading,” with a note attached to the video stating: “Missing Context. Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.”
Stossel was compelled to sue Facebook over defamation.
We now know that Facebook’s so-called “independent fact-checkers” are nothing of the sort. And we know this because Facebook admitted so in a response to Stossel’s defamation lawsuit.
According to Facebook, Stossel cannot sue the company for defamation because, “The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.”
In other words, Facebook let the cat out of the bag in stating that its so-called “fact checks” are not fact checks at all; they are, in the words of Facebook’s lawyers, “protected opinion.” In essence, Facebook is saying its “fact checks” are not objective, but rather subjective.
Yet, Facebook’s admission about the true nature of its “fact-checking” system does not square with how the company describes it on its own website.
On Facebook’s “About Fact-Checking on Facebook” website page, Facebook says, “We’re committed to fighting the spread of misinformation on Facebook and Instagram. … The focus of this fact-checking program is identifying and addressing viral misinformation, particularly clear hoaxes that have no basis in fact. Fact-checking partners prioritize provably false claims, especially those that are timely or trending and important to the average person.”
Stossel’s fact-laden argument that government mismanagement was a chief cause of California’s 2020 wildfires did not run afoul of Facebook’s own protocols. This was not viral misinformation. It was also not a hoax. It was also not false.
Facebook also states, “Fact-checking partners do not prioritize claims that are inconsequential or consist of minor inaccuracies. Additionally, the program is not meant to interfere with individual expression, opinions and debate, clearly satirical or humorous content, or business disputes.”
Clearly, Facebook violated its own “fact-checking” protocols when it flagged Stossel’s post.
But that’s only half the story.
Facebook unfairly and unduly placed Stossel’s video in its “fact-checking” cross-hairs, going out of its way to stifle Stossel’s content.
Yet, Facebook has not, and does not, apply the same “fact-checking” standard to a host of issues, such as the perpetuation of the Russia-Trump collusion lie, which clearly violate Facebook’s “fact-checking” guidelines but adhere to Facebook’s preferred ideology.
Long ago, Facebook lost credibility when it made it clear as day that it would use its “fact-checking” apparatus to censor fact-based content from conservatives and libertarians who dare defy Facebook’s woke, leftist ideological framework.
At the same time, Facebook has given a free pass to those who are actually guilty of posting misinformation, as long as they skew towards Facebook’s preferred ideological and political narratives.
Unless and until Facebook implements an unbiased, objective-based fact-checking program, anyone who has been unduly censored or flagged for posting “misinformation” should entertain legal avenues to ensure their reputations are not slandered.
Perhaps that is the best course of action to hold Facebook’s “fact-checkers” accountable.
Chris Talgo ([email protected]) Senior editor, The Heartland Institute
About Post Author
You may also like
-
The Benefits of Movable Soundproof Room Dividers: Flexibility, Noise Control, and Sustainable Design
-
What to Do Following an Unfair Workers’ Compensation Denial
-
Benefits of Utilizing After School Programs
-
Why Is Extra Security Needed for Events and Meetings?
-
How to Skip the Hassle of PA’s with Orbit AI