Facebook admitted that its so-called “fact-checking” program is actually cranking out opinions used to censor certain viewpoints.
In its latest legal battle with TV journalist John Stossel over a post about the origins of the deadly 2020 California forest fires, Facebook, now rebranded and referred to as “Meta,” claims that its “fact-checking” program should not be the target of a defamation suit because its attempts to regulate content are done by third-party organizations who are entitled to their “opinion.”
Stossel’s original complaint questioned whether “Facebook and its vendors defame a user who posts factually accurate content, when they publicly announce that the content failed a ‘fact-check’ and is ‘partly false,’ and by attributing to the user a false claim that he never made?” Facebook, however, claimed that the counter article authored by Climate Feedback is not necessarily the tech giant’s responsibility.
Facebook went on to complain that Stossel’s problem isn’t with the Silicon Valley giants’ “labels” on his content but with the obscure organizations that Facebook employs to do its “fact-checking” dirty work.
“The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion,” Facebook admitted. “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.”
It’s no secret that Facebook uses its “fact-checking” program to curb information that it wants to be censored, and this November lawsuit gives more insight into the Big Tech company’s methods and twisted rationale.
“The independence of the fact-checkers is a deliberate feature of Meta’s fact-checking program, designed to ensure that Meta does not become the arbiter of truth on its platforms,” the lawsuit stated before admitting that “Meta identifies potential misinformation for fact-checkers to review and rate. … [I]t leaves the ultimate determination of whether information is false or misleading to the fact-checkers. And though Meta has designed its platforms so that fact-checker ratings appear next to content that the fact-checkers have reviewed and rated, it does not contribute to the substance of those ratings.”
HD Editor’s Note: Why Is This News Biblically Relevant?
The New York Post has faced Facebook’s corrupt “fact-checkers” on multiple occasions, sparking widespread attention. In their article reporting on Facebook’s admitted opinion-checks, the news company described their past struggles with Facebook censorship.
“The Post has faced this same gauntlet too many times. In February 2020, we published a column by Steven W. Mosher asking if COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan Lab. This was labeled ‘false’ by Facebook’s fact-checkers,” the article stated. “Of course, those supposed ‘independent’ scientific reviewers relied on a group of experts who had a vested interest in dismissing that theory — including EcoHealth, which had funded the Wuhan lab.”
“When Twitter’ fact-checked’ and blocked The Post’s stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop as ‘hacked materials,’ what was the basis? Nothing,” they insisted. “It wasn’t hacked; the company’s staff just wanted an excuse. Guess they didn’t like our tone.”
“In both these cases, our ‘fact checks’ were lifted,” they explained, “but only after it no longer mattered.”
“The fact-check industry is funded by liberal moguls such as George Soros, government-funded nonprofits, and the tech giants themselves,” The Post asserted. “The checkers are not the unbiased arbiters of truth; they are useful distractions, groups Facebook can use to absolve itself of responsibility. Free speech be damned.”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis earlier this month stated that “Silicon Valley oligarchs shouldn’t be the arbiters of free speech in our country.”
“Big Tech has become the censorship arm of the Democratic Party and political left, silencing and de-platforming anyone who rejects the chosen left-wing narrative,” the Governor said on Twitter.
Although not what one might picture when thinking of “lawlessness,” what social media companies have done in political censorship is corrupt and lawless behavior. Tech giants continue to escape being held accountable for their attacks on the fundamental right of free speech, as well as their election meddling, and suppression of truth.
In the Bible, we read that lawlessness will be one of the key characteristics of the time prior to the return of Jesus.
In Matthew 24, when Jesus’ disciples ask Him “what shall be the signs of thy coming?” the Lord stated that, “iniquity shall abound” (Matt. 24:12). The word “iniquity” comes from the Greek word “anomia,” which means to be “without law,” not because there are no laws, but because laws are being flagrantly “violated.”
The Apostle Paul in his letters to Timothy and the Christians in Rome also explained that the corrupt suppression of truth would be an important sign of the “last days.”
2 Timothy 3:1, 8-9 states that “perilous times” will come in which “men of corrupt minds” will “resist the truth.”
Romans 1:18 similarly states that the “wrath of God is revealed from heaven against” those “who hold the truth in unrighteousness.” The word “hold” in this verse, comes from the Greek word “κατέχω,” which means to “hold back,” “restrain,” or “hinder.”
