John Stossel Sues Facebook for Allegedly Defaming Him With Fact-Check

It 's good to see him push back.
It raises the question in my mind of who are the fact checkers? Are they experts in the field they're fact checking, or are they Silicon Valley tech nerds that wear politically shaded lenses in their glasses?
 
Last edited:
Timfoilhat said:
It 's good to see him push back.
It raises the question in my mind of who are the fact checkers? Are they experts in the field they're fact checking, or are they Silicon Valley tech nerds that wear politically shaded lenses in their glasses?
Click to expand...

If you look deep into your soul of souls, I think you already know the answer to that.

----

Facebook might be in trouble on this one. A couple things about Stossel:
He's very well researched no matter what subject he's taking on.
He's open to facts and willing to change his mind based on them.
He is very careful about the things he says and the way he says them.

Im curious what will happen if he ends up taking them to the cleaners. Will a bunch of folks FB has done this to band together in a larger suit? You know, the little sites and guys who couldn't afford to do it on their own?
It'll be interesting to see if this is a one off or a snowball on a hill.
 
Timfoilhat said:
It raises the question in my mind of who are the fact checkers? Are they experts in the field they're fact checking, or are they Silicon Valley tech nerds that wear politically shaded lenses in their glasses?
Click to expand...

Prius drivin’, hoodie wearin’, soy latte drinkers. 🤓
 
Timfoilhat said:
It 's good to see him push back.
It raises the question in my mind of who are the fact checkers? Are they experts in the field they're fact checking, or are they Silicon Valley tech nerds that wear politically shaded lenses in their glasses?
Click to expand...

"Fact checkers" are nothing more than people who work for a site and are paid to thumbs up or thumbs down postings/article/videos on any give subject. They may or may not be "experts in the field".

How any given site presents their fact checking varies, too. Some cite the claim, then go about citing the applicable references, including the source for which the claim is about. This can essentially be a small article on the subject.

Some flag the claim and insert a link.

Some just flag the claim with nothing much else about it.

I agree...it's good to see some push back.

In fact, I'd love to seem some push back from John Q. Public on the general veracity of media publications in the first place. All this focus on "fact checking" is a sideline to the fact that major media outlets SUCK at presenting factual information, and in context. They get away with this by hanging this upon the First Amendment. The first amendment does not give permission to present misleading or outright lies in their publications.
 
Good for him! We all know the fact checks are complete BS. They’re often far from fact, and more like poorly informed, heavily slanted opinion.

As for the fact checkers, they’ve been looked into and reported on a few different times. They’re primarily third parties, contracted by fb to limit liability for what they do, and it’s basically a call center type atmosphere of 80-90% liberals. Free thinking or questioning the narrative leads to punishment.
 
I used to absolutely detest Stossel. But then he switched his stance on just about everything. I still have a hard time watching him due to his style, but at least now his stuff makes sense. I read an interview with him that his 19 emmys were all from before he switched sides, but he's received very little acknowledgement since then. I guess the media thinks he's a traitor. A lot of people are getting called that lately...

draco88 said:
According to Meatloaf, it's quite the opposite 😉
Click to expand...
ah, good old mr loaf. he's got a lyric for just about every situation, doesn't he?
 
I don't think much will come of this. In the end the censorship isn't an idea dreamed up by the social media giants, they're just following the orders of their government masters, and since the government masters are the ones who ultimately decide wrongdoing who do you think they're going to side with?
 
DrScaryGuy said:
he can be cooked right too, you know.
Click to expand...

MEATLOAF FOR SUPPER!!

d24380416cba952a3a754578b26edc2b--rocky-horror-what-s.jpg
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
"Fact checkers" are nothing more than people who work for a site and are paid to thumbs up or thumbs down postings/article/videos on any give subject. They may or may not be "experts in the field".

How any given site presents their fact checking varies, too. Some cite the claim, then go about citing the applicable references, including the source for which the claim is about. This can essentially be a small article on the subject.

Some flag the claim and insert a link.

Some just flag the claim with nothing much else about it.

I agree...it's good to see some push back.

In fact, I'd love to seem some push back from John Q. Public on the general veracity of media publications in the first place. All this focus on "fact checking" is a sideline to the fact that major media outlets SUCK at presenting factual information, and in context. They get away with this by hanging this upon the First Amendment. The first amendment does not give permission to present misleading or outright lies in their publications.
Click to expand...

He also has a video where he interviewed one of the fact checkers who is quoted as saying it was more about tone than actual facts. I hope he can also pressure FB to remove Climate Feedback as a group that does fact checking. They have been expanding to censor items on YouTube and Twitter as well, and the world would be a better place if their influence was removed.
 
"Fact checkers" are the same as "journalists". Political activists.
 
Les White said:
I don't think much will come of this. In the end the censorship isn't an idea dreamed up by the social media giants, they're just following the orders of their government masters, and since the government masters are the ones who ultimately decide wrongdoing who do you think they're going to side with?
Click to expand...

“A managed democracy is a wonderful thing... for the managers... and its greatest strength is a 'free press' when 'free' is defined as 'responsible' and the managers define what is 'irresponsible'.”

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Robert A. Heinlein.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom