Mark Zuckerberg thought Facebook was battling a defamation lawsuit.
But it turned into a shocking exposure on the big lie behind a major scam.
Because a former ABC news anchor took Facebook to court and what got exposed blew the lie wide open on a major censorship tool.
Social media has become an enforcement arm of the establishment.
Facebook and Twitter police “misinformation” on their platforms by fact-checking claims.
But Facebook made a shocking admission about company fact-checks.
The idea of censoring Facebook and Twitter was hardly a consideration until the election of Donald Trump in 2016.
Since then, the elites are determined to ensure that another outsider never breaks up the establishment party again.
The elites’ solution to Trump’s Presidency was mass censorship online.
Their argument is that “misinformation” is dangerous and must be quashed.
And social media sites like Facebook use third-party fact-checkers to determine what constitutes misinformation and what does not.
But there’s just one problem: Facebook was forced to admit that their fact-checks are matters of opinion, thanks to a defamation suit filed by John Stossel, the libertarian former host of ABC’s 20/20.
Despite presenting itself to the public as the arbiter of truth and guarantor of factually-accurate information, guarding users against “fake news” and “misinformation,” Facebook has admitted in court that its “fact checks” of information — frequently aimed at conservatives — are nothing more than statements of opinion.
The bombshell emerged from Facebook’s court battle with John Stossel, who is suing the company for defamation over its decision to add “fact check” labels to the libertarian pundit’s videos about climate change.
Facebook and Twitter defer to “objective” third parties, which have the same politics as the rest of the establishment.
It’s no surprise that the fact-checks almost invariably slant in one direction.
The Facebook court filing reads (emphasis added)
“Beyond this threshold Section 230 problem, the complaint also fails to state a claim for defamation. For one, Stossel fails to plead facts establishing that Meta acted with actual malice— which, as a public figure, he must. For another, Stossel’s claims focus on the fact-check articles written by Climate Feedback, not the labels affixed through the Facebook platform. The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion. And even if Stossel could attribute Climate Feedback’s separate webpages to Meta, the challenged statements on those pages are likewise neither false nor defamatory. Any of these failures would doom Stossel’s complaint, but the combination makes any amendment futile.”
That’s the core issue at the heart of the fact-check problem?
Who watches the watchman?
Opinion from fact-checkers is being repacked as fact on platforms like Facebook, which gives the company the cover to censor material.
The simpler solution would be to allow free speech and only target instances of incitement to violence, which is not protected.
Instead, left-wing fact-checking organizations serve as buffers for the platforms doing the bidding of the establishment.
Stay tuned to Unmuzzled News for any updates to this ongoing story.