Remember around the start of COVID, or the suspicious 2020 election, Facebook implied that anyone not agreeing with their “fact checks” were just racist conservatives or other bigots.
Turns out, well, their fact-checks were complete and utter bogus. Again, their fact checks were not factual.
Now think back to how you were criticized for complaining about how unfair social media was being to conservatives. We were laughed at, called names, and shunned.
As it turns out, they were lying the ENTIRE time. No word from liberals yet on how their crow tastes, but there’s no doubt they’re eating it right now.
The hero who exposed all of this? None other than John Stossel and his glorious mustache, who sued Facebook over the company’s decision to add “fact-check” labels to Stossel’s videos. In the court case, it came out that Facebook itself claims its “fact-checks” are nothing more than “protected opinions.”
From page two of Facebook’s court filing: “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.”
To read more about this story, click here.