How Propagandists Co-Opted ‘Fact-Checkers’ and the Press to Control the Information Landscape

[SongSungAu]

I just stumbled across EpochTV's Rumble channel. I didn't know they had a Rumble channel. I have a subscription to their service so I watch on their own website. It appears they wait months before posting the videos to their Rumble channel but at least this is a free option for those who don't have access to The Epoch Times website. This video is from January, 2022. It's one of the American Thought Leaders programs.

How Propagandists Co-Opted ‘Fact-Checkers’ and the Press to Control the Information Landscape (1:00:22)

Published January 20, 2022 by EpochTV (The Epoch Times)​

 

[cheka]

their fellow (communists) in fedgov have achieved chinese communist style economic reporting. and the 'fact checkers' will point to these rigged numbers

old skool zhedge article takes a sledgehammer to the ridiculousness

Something Is Rigged: Unexplained, Record 2.7 Million Jobs Gap Emerges In Broken Payrolls Report | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Something Is Rigged: Unexplained, Record 2.7 Million Jobs Gap Emerges In Broken Payrolls Report​

 

[Voodoo]

Facebook admitted in a lawsuit by John Stossle that they were Not actually checking facts. They were just offering an avenue for a differing opinion. Just heard that on the radio, did not read the actual lawsuit.

 

[pmbug]

I doubt Facebook admitted anything since they got the case dismissed last month:

MSN

www.msn.com

But details are available if you want to dig for them:

Stossel v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al

On 09/22/2021 Stossel filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury court case against Meta Platforms, Inc in U.S. District Courts. Court records for this case are available from California Northern District Court.

unicourt.com

 

[Goldhedge]

"John Stossel objected to labels on two videos he posted on Facebook, including one in which he said "bad policies," rather than climate change, were the biggest cause of California's devastating wildfires of 2020.​

​

First, the judgment of the fact-checkers is subjective and therefore not an "actionable statement" in relation to a defamation claim.​

Second, such fact-checking activity is protected by California's anti-SLAPP statute, which allows for the dismissal of meritless suits aimed at preventing free speech on a matter of public interest."​

So by this it seems the courts believe in climate change? The 'official' narrative is 'climate change', so that means no other reason exists.

The lawsuit is frivolous in that Stossel should get off FB because they make stuff up to suit their agenda. 'Labels' are what they do. It's like the scorpion and the toad fable.

 

[Voodoo]

"John Stossel objected to labels on two videos he posted on Facebook, including one in which he said "bad policies," rather than climate change, were the biggest cause of California's devastating wildfires of 2020.​

​

First, the judgment of the fact-checkers is subjective and therefore not an "actionable statement" in relation to a defamation claim.​

Second, such fact-checking activity is protected by California's anti-SLAPP statute, which allows for the dismissal of meritless suits aimed at preventing free speech on a matter of public interest."​

So by this it seems the courts believe in climate change? The 'official' narrative is 'climate change', so that means no other reason exists.

The lawsuit is frivolous in that Stossel should get off FB because they make stuff up to suit their agenda. 'Labels' are what they do. It's like the scorpion and the toad fable.

So they dismissed the lawsuit because by definition the fact-checkers is just subjective opinion. I'd sue them over the name "fact-checker". Not sure what standing you would need, nor do I really care because the justice system is a GD joke.

Also, it looks like it is not over as they just filed an appeal. Man what a laborious (lawyer cha-ching) system. And you have to pay just to read it... NOPE.

 

[CiscoKid]

I have to wonder if these so-called "fact checkers" actually fool anyone except the very low IQ crowd. We joke about them on the golf course and none of my circle believe anything that comes from them.

Remember how Snopes was started. With a loser, a prostitute, and a cat. One would have to have the intelligence of a wet paper bag to believe anything that they state as fact.

 

[pmbug]

...
So by this it seems the courts believe in climate change? ...

I take it you didn't read the first link I posted.

...
In granting the dismissal request by Facebook parent company Meta, U.S. District Judge Virginia DeMarchi cited two reasons:

First, the judgment of the fact-checkers is subjective and therefore not an "actionable statement" in relation to a defamation claim.

Second, such fact-checking activity is protected by California's anti-SLAPP statute, which allows for the dismissal of meritless suits aimed at preventing free speech on a matter of public interest.
...

The judge made no judgement whatsoever about climate change.

 

[Voodoo]

I have to wonder if these so-called "fact checkers" actually fool anyone except the very low IQ crowd. We joke about them on the golf course and none of my circle believe anything that comes from them.

Remember how Snopes was started. With a loser, a prostitute, and a cat. One would have to have the intelligence of a wet paper bag to believe anything that they state as fact.

 

[Voodoo]

I doubt Facebook admitted anything since they got the case dismissed last month:

MSN

www.msn.com

But details are available if you want to dig for them:

Stossel v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al

On 09/22/2021 Stossel filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury court case against Meta Platforms, Inc in U.S. District Courts. Court records for this case are available from California Northern District Court.

unicourt.com

So you are correct in that Meta didn't admit anything. It's just that the judge used it as his Primary argument to dismiss the case. Even better.

 

[pmbug]

So you are correct in that Meta didn't admit anything. It's just that the judge used it as his Primary argument to dismiss the case. Even better.

The judge did not make any assertions one way or the other on that issue. It wasn't germane to her ruling.

 

[cheka]

looks like musk released some twitter censorship info - might need a new thread for it

​