BOMBSHELL: In court filing, Facebook admits fact checks are nothing more than opinion

[Maxdeath]

Funny that they attempt to call an opinion a fact. They need a dictionary and someone to explain how to use it

 

[Hellokitty]

Meta Attorneys: Facebook Fact Check Labels Are Opinion

m.theepochtimes.com

so their OPINIONS are protected, and if you disagree, you are wrong.

how "liberal"

I thought FB testified the fact checkers used algorithms or some techie stuff...it would seem they lied to congress, yet again.

 

[shockedcanadian]

So, if their opinions are protected, why aren't the opinion of those posting protected in the same manner? Furthermore, a fact is distinguishable by an opinion. It's why there are two different words for the circumstances.

As far as I am concerned, unless someone is encouraging a crime, they should be allowed to speak.

 

[colfax_m]

why aren't the opinion of those posting protected in the same manner?

They are!

 

[shockedcanadian]

They are!

So there isn't any censorship on social media? I've stopped using twitter (I know it's a different company), because I am permanently Shadowbanned and basically not allowed to contribute to the debate. They also choked off my followers every time I reached 8000 or so, I would build them back up, and like clockwork I would get near 8000 and I'd wake up to 6000.

The stronger your arguments and the more support you receive for voicing them (if they run counter to their ideologues), the more the social media overlords silence you.

It's why the West no longer has the higher ground in citicizing China and others for restrictions on speech. These companies have done a MAJOR disservice to Americas global interests in my opinion. The CCP themselves have said "the muting of a president in the U.S on social media shows that even America has limits on freedom".

Both Facebook and twitter shut down Trump. Who benefitted from this? Another Party maybe, that's it. The companies themselves, America and the American People didn't benefit, that's for certain.

 

[iceberg]

First Amendment protects their opinions, yes.

then it protects mine as well, fucknuts.

 

[iceberg]

They are!

they are not. they are removed. they are "corrected"

and i can't stop it.

 

[iceberg]

Everyone’s opinion is protected.

The question you need to ask yourself is, protected from what exactly.

God you are just intentionally stupid.

 

[colfax_m]

they are not. they are removed. they are "corrected"

and i can't stop it.

Facebook is claiming their opinions are protected from claims of defamation.

That’s what Stossel’s lawsuit is about.

Everyone’s opinions are protected in the same way.

It seems you don’t understand what the topic is over. It’s about protection from claims of defamation.

 

[iceberg]

Facebook is claiming their opinions are protected from claims of defamation.

That’s what Stossel’s lawsuit is about.

Everyone’s opinions are protected in the same way.

It seems you don’t understand what the topic is over. It’s about protection from claims of defamation.

why are they allowed to force their opinions into my conversation and call them FACT.

it's bullshit and you know it.

 

[colfax_m]

So there isn't any censorship on social media? I've stopped using twitter (I know it's a different company), because I am permanently Shadowbanned and basically not allowed to contribute to the debate. They also choked off my followers every time I reached 8000 or so, I would build them back up, and like clockwork I would get near 8000 and I'd wake up to 6000.

The stronger your arguments and the more support you receive for voicing them (if they run counter to their ideologues), the more the social media overlords silence you.

It's why the West no longer has the higher ground in citicizing China and others for restrictions on speech. These companies have done a MAJOR disservice to Americas global interests in my opinion. The CCP themselves have said "the muting of a president in the U.S on social media shows that even America has limits on freedom".

Both Facebook and twitter shut down Trump. Who benefitted from this? Another Party maybe, that's it. The companies themselves, America and the American People didn't benefit, that's for certain.

It’s not a case about “censorship”.

Stossel is claiming the fact checkers have defamed him by contradicting him. They aren’t. You can’t sue someone for defamation for expressing an opinion.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

why are they allowed to force their opinions into my conversation and call them FACT.

it's bullshit and you know it.

It's Fakebook and if one doesn't know their insidious game by now there is no hope for them

 

[colfax_m]

why are they allowed to force their opinions into my conversation and call them FACT.

They are “allowed” to express their opinions on their platform.

It’s called property rights.

Whether they called something a fact that is defamatory is up to the court.

Point is that everyone is allowed to be free from claims of defamation if they’re expressing an opinion.

 

[iceberg]

It's Fakebook and if one doesn't know their insidious game by now there is no hope for them

and you can see their bullshit pimps in here now.

 

[colfax_m]

and you can see their bullshit pimps in here now.

I’m sticking up for property rights. Maybe that’s not your interest.

 

[Burgermeister]

Protected or not, they disqualify Facebook from the Section 230 protections. FB is constantly deciding what content to publish, and that makes them publishers, so they should not be covered by 230.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Apparently the US Treasury is also threatening six figure fines to journalists who don't write on approved web sites.

 

[iceberg]

Protected or not, they disqualify Facebook from the Section 230 protections. FB is constantly deciding what content to publish, and that makes them publishers, so they should not be covered by 230.

exactly.

 

[colfax_m]

Protected or not, they disqualify Facebook from the Section 230 protections. FB is constantly deciding what content to publish, and that makes them publishers, so they should not be covered by 230.

It doesn’t!

Section 230 specifically offers protections to websites that do choose which content to publish.

If Facebook didn’t decide which content to publish, they’d have no need for any protections from any law since they couldn’t be sued regardless of section 230 or anything else.

 

[iceberg]

Apparently the US Treasury is also threatening six figure fines to journalists who don't write on approved web sites.

gov needs to get out of the media business. Obama started all this shit with attacks in fox and its way out of hand now.