Tweet
John Stossel sued Facebook for defamation over their defamatory 'fact-checking. First, they slapped a label onto a facebook video post of his declaring his post 'misleading' when he stated that California's wildfires were mostly caused by government mismangagement (something that is objectively true). They, using their third party 'climate factchecker', declared it was misleading, and linked to said factchecker which put words in quotations that he didn't even say (“Forest fires are caused by poor management. Not by climate change.” ) He never uttered a word about climate change not playing a role in the post (in fact he literally said climate change has made the extant problem even worse), but that was what they 'fact-checked' and Facebook labeled him as 'misleading' for.
When he then challenged the third party factchecker themselves, they agreed to an on-camera interview and admitted they had not ever watched the video in the post that they 'fact-checked'. Upon notifying Facebook of this, Facebook did nothing, and left the libelous 'misleading' label on his post.
He didn't sue then. And then Facebook did it again with another post, declaring it 'partly false', It was a video post where he said climate change is real but we can adapt to it. This time the (same) 'fact-checker' claims to have watched the video, didn't find any facts he'd gottwn wrong, but didn't like what it said, and decided not enough 'contextual information' had been provided in it.
So, he sued, and in the court case, Facebook has been trying to hide behind Section 230. But then they used another defense. That the fact-checking is opinion, and thus immune from defamation claims.
https://nypost.com/2021/12/13/facebo...te-is-opinion/
https://mb.com.ph/2021/12/15/us-cour...nion-checkers/
When he then challenged the third party factchecker themselves, they agreed to an on-camera interview and admitted they had not ever watched the video in the post that they 'fact-checked'. Upon notifying Facebook of this, Facebook did nothing, and left the libelous 'misleading' label on his post.
He didn't sue then. And then Facebook did it again with another post, declaring it 'partly false', It was a video post where he said climate change is real but we can adapt to it. This time the (same) 'fact-checker' claims to have watched the video, didn't find any facts he'd gottwn wrong, but didn't like what it said, and decided not enough 'contextual information' had been provided in it.
So, he sued, and in the court case, Facebook has been trying to hide behind Section 230. But then they used another defense. That the fact-checking is opinion, and thus immune from defamation claims.
https://nypost.com/2021/12/13/facebo...te-is-opinion/
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.”
I never said that!
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.”
But it was Facebook, not just a third party, that declared my posts “partly false.” Facebook’s warning was created by Facebook and posted in Facebook’s voice.
As Facebook’s own website says: “We … apply a warning label …”
I brought Facebook’s defamation to their attention a year ago, and they did nothing to correct it.
I did not want to sue Facebook. I hate lawsuits. But after they defamed me, I felt I had no choice.
How did Facebook defame me?
I made a video that said that California’s wildfires were mostly caused by poor government management. Facebook censored that as “misleading.” They linked to a Science Feedback post that puts the following sentence in quotation marks, as if it were something I said: “Forest fires are caused by poor management. Not by climate change.”
But I never said that!
Facebook’s reviewers took that quotation from someone else. Or maybe they just made it up?
In my video, I acknowledge, “Climate change has made things worse!” I just argued that government mismanagement was a bigger factor. Climate change hit lots of forests, but well-managed forests fared much better.
I asked all Science Feedback’s reviewers about their “Misleading” label. Two agreed to on-camera interviews. When I asked what was misleading about my video, they surprised me by saying that they hadn’t even watched my video! They offered no defense for posting words in quotation marks that I’d never said.
I notified Facebook. No luck.
Facebook’s refusal to acknowledge its mistake hurts me because when Facebook fact-checks something, its algorithm makes sure fewer people see that video.
That hurt me. But I hate lawsuits, so I didn’t sue.
The wrong ‘tone’
Then Facebook struck again.
They declared a video I did about the climate “crisis” partly false. This video, “Are We Doomed,” said that climate change is real but suggested that we can adapt to it, as Holland has. That video received 24 million views on Facebook. But after that second Facebook smear, viewership stopped.
Views for my other videos on Facebook dropped, too. I still get millions of views via YouTube, Rumble, etc., but I used to get most of my views from Facebook. No more.
I asked a Science Feedback reviewer what was wrong with my climate-crisis video, and he admitted that he and his other fact-checkers found no incorrect facts. Instead, they simply didn’t like my tone.
“The problem is the omission of contextual information rather than specific ‘facts’ being wrong,” he said.
What? It’s fine if people don’t like my tone. But Facebook declares my post “partly false,” a term it defines on its website as including “factual inaccuracies.”
My video does not contain factual inaccuracies. Again, I pointed this out to Facebook. But it changed nothing.
I want Facebook to learn that censorship — especially sloppy, malicious censorship, censorship without any meaningful appeal process — is NOT the way to go.
The world needs more freedom to discuss things, not less.
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.”
I never said that!
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.”
But it was Facebook, not just a third party, that declared my posts “partly false.” Facebook’s warning was created by Facebook and posted in Facebook’s voice.
As Facebook’s own website says: “We … apply a warning label …”
I brought Facebook’s defamation to their attention a year ago, and they did nothing to correct it.
I did not want to sue Facebook. I hate lawsuits. But after they defamed me, I felt I had no choice.
How did Facebook defame me?
I made a video that said that California’s wildfires were mostly caused by poor government management. Facebook censored that as “misleading.” They linked to a Science Feedback post that puts the following sentence in quotation marks, as if it were something I said: “Forest fires are caused by poor management. Not by climate change.”
But I never said that!
Facebook’s reviewers took that quotation from someone else. Or maybe they just made it up?
In my video, I acknowledge, “Climate change has made things worse!” I just argued that government mismanagement was a bigger factor. Climate change hit lots of forests, but well-managed forests fared much better.
I asked all Science Feedback’s reviewers about their “Misleading” label. Two agreed to on-camera interviews. When I asked what was misleading about my video, they surprised me by saying that they hadn’t even watched my video! They offered no defense for posting words in quotation marks that I’d never said.
I notified Facebook. No luck.
Facebook’s refusal to acknowledge its mistake hurts me because when Facebook fact-checks something, its algorithm makes sure fewer people see that video.
That hurt me. But I hate lawsuits, so I didn’t sue.
The wrong ‘tone’
Then Facebook struck again.
They declared a video I did about the climate “crisis” partly false. This video, “Are We Doomed,” said that climate change is real but suggested that we can adapt to it, as Holland has. That video received 24 million views on Facebook. But after that second Facebook smear, viewership stopped.
Views for my other videos on Facebook dropped, too. I still get millions of views via YouTube, Rumble, etc., but I used to get most of my views from Facebook. No more.
I asked a Science Feedback reviewer what was wrong with my climate-crisis video, and he admitted that he and his other fact-checkers found no incorrect facts. Instead, they simply didn’t like my tone.
“The problem is the omission of contextual information rather than specific ‘facts’ being wrong,” he said.
What? It’s fine if people don’t like my tone. But Facebook declares my post “partly false,” a term it defines on its website as including “factual inaccuracies.”
My video does not contain factual inaccuracies. Again, I pointed this out to Facebook. But it changed nothing.
I want Facebook to learn that censorship — especially sloppy, malicious censorship, censorship without any meaningful appeal process — is NOT the way to go.
The world needs more freedom to discuss things, not less.
In a world where social media is already part of our daily lives, two things do exist: misinformation and disinformation. False, inaccurate, or misleading information is misinformation, while something deliberately deceptive is considered disinformation.
I already lost count of the number of times Facebook tagged my posts (on my personal timeline) as either false, inaccurate, or misleading information – when I am just quoting reliable news sources. Well, it is their platform and I am just a user therein.
Well, someone took a stand and challenged the way Facebook does this “fact-checking” and court documents submitted revealed some intriguing things.
Stossel vs Facebook Inc. et al
In September this year, American TV presenter, author, and journalist John Frank Stossel sued Facebook, Inc. (now known as Meta Platforms, Inc.), Science Feedback, and Climate Feedback. Stosell filed a personal injury lawsuit against the social media giant seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and award for damages along with costs for alleged defamation.
The complaint states, “in the last year, Stossel posted on Facebook two short video reports in which he interviewed experts in the climate change arena about facts and data that Defendants concede are true. Without identifying a single false fact contained in the video reports — and in one instance, apparently without even bothering to review the video at all — Defendants publicly announced that Stossel’s reporting had failed a fact-check.”
In a document submitted by the attorneys of Meta Platforms, Inc. to the United States District Court (San Jose, California Division) last 29 November 2021 (for case Case 5:21-cv-07385-VKD), Facebook has admitted that fact-checks are merely opinions or opinion assertions, and not factual at all.
53707.png
In an article written by Stossel and published by Fremont News-Messenger last 04 December 2021, he said: “Facebook often censors things that should be talked about… I sympathize with Facebook. Some users spread lies… But there’s no way Facebook can police all the posts, so it does destructive things like partnering with Poynter Institute ‘fact-checkers’.”
The Poynter Institute for Media Studies is a non-profit journalism school and research organization based in St. Petersburg, Florida. The school owns the Tampa Bay Times and the International Fact-Checking Network. They also operate PolitiFact.
With Facebook admitting that their so-called “fact-checkers” merely rely on opinions, perhaps it is time for the social media network to re-label them as “opinion-checkers” from here on.
I already lost count of the number of times Facebook tagged my posts (on my personal timeline) as either false, inaccurate, or misleading information – when I am just quoting reliable news sources. Well, it is their platform and I am just a user therein.
Well, someone took a stand and challenged the way Facebook does this “fact-checking” and court documents submitted revealed some intriguing things.
Stossel vs Facebook Inc. et al
In September this year, American TV presenter, author, and journalist John Frank Stossel sued Facebook, Inc. (now known as Meta Platforms, Inc.), Science Feedback, and Climate Feedback. Stosell filed a personal injury lawsuit against the social media giant seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and award for damages along with costs for alleged defamation.
The complaint states, “in the last year, Stossel posted on Facebook two short video reports in which he interviewed experts in the climate change arena about facts and data that Defendants concede are true. Without identifying a single false fact contained in the video reports — and in one instance, apparently without even bothering to review the video at all — Defendants publicly announced that Stossel’s reporting had failed a fact-check.”
In a document submitted by the attorneys of Meta Platforms, Inc. to the United States District Court (San Jose, California Division) last 29 November 2021 (for case Case 5:21-cv-07385-VKD), Facebook has admitted that fact-checks are merely opinions or opinion assertions, and not factual at all.
53707.png
In an article written by Stossel and published by Fremont News-Messenger last 04 December 2021, he said: “Facebook often censors things that should be talked about… I sympathize with Facebook. Some users spread lies… But there’s no way Facebook can police all the posts, so it does destructive things like partnering with Poynter Institute ‘fact-checkers’.”
The Poynter Institute for Media Studies is a non-profit journalism school and research organization based in St. Petersburg, Florida. The school owns the Tampa Bay Times and the International Fact-Checking Network. They also operate PolitiFact.
With Facebook admitting that their so-called “fact-checkers” merely rely on opinions, perhaps it is time for the social media network to re-label them as “opinion-checkers” from here on.
Comment