Facebook had to admit that their ‘fact checks’ we all see on our posts are actually just opinion checks thanks to a lawsuit John Stossel brought against the big tech firm.
What started the lawsuit though? Stossel produces videos weekly on social media platforms touching on a lot of subjects from big government idolatry to topics such as climate change. In some of his climate change videos, he discusses the issues that surround situations, such as the California wildfires, and how technology can help to adapt to the changes around us.
One particular video that he posted was titled “Government Fueled Fires.”
In the video, Stossel said, “While climate change undoubtedly contributes to forest fires, it was not the primary cause of the 2020 California fires.”
He brought up the mismanagement of forests was one of the causes of the tragic fires last year. He didn’t just state this as an opinion, Stossel being a great journalist provided several facts that supported his claims.
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.”
This prompted Stossel to sue Facebook for defamation.
When posts and videos are marked as “missing context” or any other opinion check, shrinks your audience. It pushes your posts and videos further down the algorithm which will keep readers, watchers, and revenue from reaching you.
This is what happened to John Stossel.
He wrote an article for the New York Post:
Facebook is a private company, so it can censor whomever it wants. But what Facebook is doing lately is just sleazy.
Recently, I sued them because they defamed me. They, along with one of their “fact-checkers,” a group called Science Feedback, lied about me and continue to lie about me.
Now Facebook has responded to my lawsuit in court.
Amazingly, their lawyers now claim that Facebook’s “fact-checks” are merely “opinion” and therefore immune from defamation.
Wait — Facebook’s fact-checks are just “opinion”?! I thought fact-checks are statements of fact.
That’s how Facebook portrays them on its website: “Each time a fact-checker rates a piece of content as false, Facebook significantly reduces the content’s distribution … We … apply a warning label that links to the fact-checker’s article, disproving the claim.”
“Disproving.” Sure sounds like Facebook claims its labels are statements of fact.
Facebook’s “opinion” defense is similar to what Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow argued when they were sued. They said we just give opinions; our viewers knew we aren’t sources for objective facts.
But Carlson and Maddow have a better argument. They’re known for giving opinions. Facebook posts “fact-checks.”
The company, which now calls itself Meta, also asked a judge to toss my lawsuit “because Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects Meta from liability for material posted to the Facebook platform by third parties.”
Facebook admitted in court that Stossel cannot sue the company for defamation because, “The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.”
So we’re not having what we say checked by people who are actually looking into what we post for factual or false information. They are simply stating their opinion. Their lefty opinion that tends to actually go against the facts.
So yet again, stand against the tyranny.
