FOX News Proposes Criminalizing Fact-checking.

[Shelzin]

Sure. What's your point?

Can't sue Facebook... Or... Youtube. Do you agree with that?

But you agree that you CAN sue the fact checkers that they hire?

Why can't you sue them? Lots of people do it. You've got to have facts and the law on your side to win though.

No... You can't. Not in this context. That's the whole point behind Publisher vs Platform. YEARS... This has been talked about for YEARS... I hope we understand each other this go around. Mac... Please god help me I'm on the wrong side to be believed for a lot of these people. Nobody needs to agree, just understand.

Platform: Like a telephone company or internet service company they aren't responsible for what you say using their service. But you also can't sue them for something someone else says on their service. They are a platform.

Publisher: This is your media. This is your news organizations... You can sue them. They regulate what is said, and own said information.

Right now Facebook and Youtube ect... ect... Are given the Platform status.

 

[Shelzin]

Who cares what pretense they use? It’s all user content anyway. They’re going to market And brand themselves how ever they want, I don’t see why you care.

Because you can't sue a platform. They can market themselves anyway they want... I agree... But right now they get special protections from the government not even given to the MSM.

 

[Slade3200]

Problem is that social media such as Facebook and twitter isn't really checking facts, they are picking a side and censoring the other. For examples, FB will censor actual MDs that have counter views about who should get the covid vaccine. Are FB's fact checkers actual MDs that are qualified to fact check other MDs.....I don't think so.

Back in the 50s some doctors ACTUALLY recommended smoking.
Of course they had an ulterior motive bond medicine.
Much like the doctors you're referencing.
FB and others are acting responsibly in not acting as a conduit for false information that may kill people.

So facebook is qualified to practice medicine.....give me a break!

FB is qualified to decide what will and will not be broadcast to the public using their service.
If you don't like it
Build your own FB.

Thanks for the admission that facebook is not qualified to fact check MDs.

Facebook can allow or not allow whatever the hell they want on their site. Why do you care how they run their business?

They are a monopoly, time for them to be busted up like Ma Bell

Ha ha ha, I love hearing all the so-called conservatives want the government to come in to break up companies now fine with me I don’t really care about big corporations they are the same as big government as far as I’m concerned. My concern is with local communities and small business... if you want to get into a pissing match with Facebook go for it

 

[Dadoalex]

Problem is that social media such as Facebook and twitter isn't really checking facts, they are picking a side and censoring the other. For examples, FB will censor actual MDs that have counter views about who should get the covid vaccine. Are FB's fact checkers actual MDs that are qualified to fact check other MDs.....I don't think so.

Back in the 50s some doctors ACTUALLY recommended smoking.
Of course they had an ulterior motive bond medicine.
Much like the doctors you're referencing.
FB and others are acting responsibly in not acting as a conduit for false information that may kill people.

So facebook is qualified to practice medicine.....give me a break!

FB is qualified to decide what will and will not be broadcast to the public using their service.
If you don't like it
Build your own FB.

Thanks for the admission that facebook is not qualified to fact check MDs.

Facebook can allow or not allow whatever the hell they want on their site. Why do you care how they run their business?

That's fine, but lets loose the pretense that they are neutral and open platform.

Not allowing you and yours to lie on their platform says nothing about their politics.
Perhaps if you guys would try a little truth for a change?

 

[Slade3200]

Who cares what pretense they use? It’s all user content anyway. They’re going to market And brand themselves how ever they want, I don’t see why you care.

Because you can't sue a platform. They can market themselves anyway they want... I agree... But right now they get special protections from the government not even given to the MSM.

Special protections? Which special protections are they getting that you think are unfair?

 

[themirrorthief]

I wish I was making this up, but no, FOX News really is going that Stalinist. Since they're getting embarrassed by fact-checkers, they want fact-checking made illegal unless fact-checkers get a government license.

David Marcus: Nobody is checking the social media fact checkers. It's time that changed

Throughout the past year biased fact checking has done irreparable harm to the body politic.

www.foxnews.com

From the article:

The real problem here is not that fact checkers got something wrong, it’s that they have the power to censor what journalism Americans see and consume unilaterally.  

Yes, yes, the standard conservative "Pointing out that I lied is censoring me!" argument.

The First Amendment rightly renders government powerless to regulate news outlets’ publishing content from their own in house fact checkers -- they are protected by freedom of the press. But third party independent fact checkers are another story entirely.

Really, FOX? Because as everyone else sees it, the fact-checkers are press too. And FOX wants them shut down by government force.

So what can be done about this dangerous situation? A new bill before the Michigan House of Representatives is a move in the right direction. The bill would require fact checkers to register with the government and carry insurance to cover payment to those who suffer financial damages as a result of a bogus fact check.

So when FOX says a Democrat lies, that would be a fact check, so they'd have to register with the government.

Yeah, right.

So, how many conservatives agree with FOX, and say that government should ban any fact-checkers not approved by the government?

democrats lie like dogs...I never had sex with that woman...Ms Lewinski

 

[themirrorthief]

Who, besides you, is claiming that President Biden never lies?

Care to show where CNN says Biden lied? Just once?

he said Hunter is totally innocent...big fat LIE

 

[Shelzin]

Who cares what pretense they use? It’s all user content anyway. They’re going to market And brand themselves how ever they want, I don’t see why you care.

Because you can't sue a platform. They can market themselves anyway they want... I agree... But right now they get special protections from the government not even given to the MSM.

Special protections? Which special protections are they getting that you think are unfair?

YOU CAN'T SUE THEM. They are not like any other company.

We have talked about this before. Just.. Google "Platform vs Publisher" ... Obviously anything I say isn't working.

 

[Slade3200]

Who cares what pretense they use? It’s all user content anyway. They’re going to market And brand themselves how ever they want, I don’t see why you care.

Because you can't sue a platform. They can market themselves anyway they want... I agree... But right now they get special protections from the government not even given to the MSM.

Special protections? Which special protections are they getting that you think are unfair?

YOU CAN'T SUE THEM. They are not like any other company.

We have talked about this before. Just.. Google "Platform vs Publisher" ... Obviously anything I say isn't working.

I’ve heard both sides of the debate but I’m asking you specifically what you want them to be sued for? Give some examples

 

[themirrorthief]

I wish I was making this up, but no, FOX News really is going that Stalinist. Since they're getting embarrassed by fact-checkers, they want fact-checking made illegal unless fact-checkers get a government license.

David Marcus: Nobody is checking the social media fact checkers. It's time that changed

Throughout the past year biased fact checking has done irreparable harm to the body politic.

www.foxnews.com

From the article:

The real problem here is not that fact checkers got something wrong, it’s that they have the power to censor what journalism Americans see and consume unilaterally.  

Yes, yes, the standard conservative "Pointing out that I lied is censoring me!" argument.

The First Amendment rightly renders government powerless to regulate news outlets’ publishing content from their own in house fact checkers -- they are protected by freedom of the press. But third party independent fact checkers are another story entirely.

Really, FOX? Because as everyone else sees it, the fact-checkers are press too. And FOX wants them shut down by government force.

So what can be done about this dangerous situation? A new bill before the Michigan House of Representatives is a move in the right direction. The bill would require fact checkers to register with the government and carry insurance to cover payment to those who suffer financial damages as a result of a bogus fact check.

So when FOX says a Democrat lies, that would be a fact check, so they'd have to register with the government.

Yeah, right.

So, how many conservatives agree with FOX, and say that government should ban any fact-checkers not approved by the government?

if you democrats hate fox so freaking much...just stop watching...and If I choose to watch it why do you hate CHOICE so freaking much?????????????????????????????

 

[Shelzin]

I’ve heard both sides of the debate but I’m asking you specifically what you want them to be sued for? Give some examples

Again... We've already done this once. I've done it more than once, but I know we went through it. What would be the point of the second time? Do you think I'm going to say something different this go around?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

they want fact-checking made illegal unless fact-checkers get a government license.

Such is the authoritarian right.

 

[Slade3200]

I’ve heard both sides of the debate but I’m asking you specifically what you want them to be sued for? Give some examples

Again... We've already done this once. I've done it more than once, but I know we went through it. What would be the point of the second time? Do you think I'm going to say something different this go around?

Guess not. No worries. Gnight

 

[JoeMoma]

Problem is that social media such as Facebook and twitter isn't really checking facts, they are picking a side and censoring the other. For examples, FB will censor actual MDs that have counter views about who should get the covid vaccine. Are FB's fact checkers actual MDs that are qualified to fact check other MDs.....I don't think so.

Back in the 50s some doctors ACTUALLY recommended smoking.
Of course they had an ulterior motive bond medicine.
Much like the doctors you're referencing.
FB and others are acting responsibly in not acting as a conduit for false information that may kill people.

So facebook is qualified to practice medicine.....give me a break!

FB is qualified to decide what will and will not be broadcast to the public using their service.
If you don't like it
Build your own FB.

Thanks for the admission that facebook is not qualified to fact check MDs.

Facebook can allow or not allow whatever the hell they want on their site. Why do you care how they run their business?

That's fine, but lets loose the pretense that they are neutral and open platform.

Not allowing you and yours to lie on their platform says nothing about their politics.
Perhaps if you guys would try a little truth for a change?

You mean like the Russians planted the Hunter Biden Laptop..... yeah....right.

 

[Slade3200]

Problem is that social media such as Facebook and twitter isn't really checking facts, they are picking a side and censoring the other. For examples, FB will censor actual MDs that have counter views about who should get the covid vaccine. Are FB's fact checkers actual MDs that are qualified to fact check other MDs.....I don't think so.

Back in the 50s some doctors ACTUALLY recommended smoking.
Of course they had an ulterior motive bond medicine.
Much like the doctors you're referencing.
FB and others are acting responsibly in not acting as a conduit for false information that may kill people.

So facebook is qualified to practice medicine.....give me a break!

FB is qualified to decide what will and will not be broadcast to the public using their service.
If you don't like it
Build your own FB.

Thanks for the admission that facebook is not qualified to fact check MDs.

Facebook can allow or not allow whatever the hell they want on their site. Why do you care how they run their business?

That's fine, but lets loose the pretense that they are neutral and open platform.

Not allowing you and yours to lie on their platform says nothing about their politics.
Perhaps if you guys would try a little truth for a change?

You mean like the Russians planted the Hunter Biden Laptop..... yeah....right.

The laptop that was accidentally left to a blind guy who gave it to Rudy Guliani?! Haha.... yeah... right.

 

[rddean]

The last I heard, FOX is being sued for $4.3 billion
That’s a lot of money

 

[BULLDOG]

Sure. What's your point?

Can't sue Facebook... Or... Youtube. Do you agree with that?

But you agree that you CAN sue the fact checkers that they hire?

Why can't you sue them? Lots of people do it. You've got to have facts and the law on your side to win though.

No... You can't. Not in this context. That's the whole point behind Publisher vs Platform. YEARS... This has been talked about for YEARS... I hope we understand each other this go around. Mac... Please god help me I'm on the wrong side to be believed for a lot of these people. Nobody needs to agree, just understand.

Platform: Like a telephone company or internet service company they aren't responsible for what you say using their service. But you also can't sue them for something someone else says on their service. They are a platform.

Publisher: This is your media. This is your news organizations... You can sue them. They regulate what is said, and own said information.

Right now Facebook and Youtube ect... ect... Are given the Platform status.

So you want to sue them for what they are legally allowed to do. How republican of you.

 

[Shelzin]

So you want to sue them for what they are legally allowed to do. How republican of you.

Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right. Slavery was legal at one time. How stupid of you.

Edit: You really should know better by now to do zingers like that to me.

 

[BULLDOG]

So you want to sue them for what they are legally allowed to do. How republican of you.

Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right. Slavery was legal at one time. How stupid of you.

Edit: You really should know better by now to do zingers like that to me.

What does slavery have to do with your claim that you can't sue facebook or YouTube?

 

[Shelzin]

So you want to sue them for what they are legally allowed to do. How republican of you.

Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right. Slavery was legal at one time. How stupid of you.

Edit: You really should know better by now to do zingers like that to me.

What does slavery have to do with your claim that you can't sue facebook or YouTube?

Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right. The statement.

Slavery was legal at one time. Proof of the statement.

How stupid of you. You really should know better by now to do zingers like that to me.