Current Events

Lawsuit filed against Facebook as the New Look changes its tune

WE NEED AND WELCOME DONATIONS TO KEEP US GOING: Please contact Michael Walsh for easy transfer details

Facebook is finally forced to admit that their so-called ‘fact-checkers’ are just opinion checkers. The truth came out in a court of law from a lawsuit filed against Facebook by journalist John Stossel. Facebook (now META) admitted in court that their fact-checkers ‘are mere statements of opinion rather than factual assertions.’

Interestingly, Facebook calls them fact-checkers until it comes time to appear in court when they finally admit that they are not fact-checkers but simply people’s opinions. Interesting too that many left-wing reporters in mainstream media are guided by unaccountable anonymous opinion formers skulking in their Silicone Valley lairs.

It would appear that this has the potential to open up a massive lawsuit against Facebook for all the people who had had their content taken down due to it being labelled as false by Facebook when in reality, it was just someone who disagreed with the information.

Is it a coincidence that the news is another reality slap across the arrogant giant’s face, which is haemorrhaging subscribers to less censorious rivals like GAB, VK and Parler?

‘Attempts to turn social media into an exclusive club where only elites have a right to speak in the name of rooting out dangerous misinformation are fundamentally wrong,’ a senior Meta official said.

Andrew Bosworth, who leads technological research at Meta and is set to become the tech giant’s CTO next year, pushed back against critics who accuse social media like Facebook of harming society by failing to police speech on their platforms.

Is this really Facebook-Meta speaking? ‘If your democracy can’t tolerate the speech of people, I’m not sure what kind of democracy it is,’ he said in an interview with ‘Axios on HBO’, which was previewed on Sunday.

He was responding to a statement by host Ina Fried (take a look at this strange creature) that some people think tools like Facebook should not exist at all because they are ’fundamentally unsafe’.

Bosworth rejected the notion that the democratization of public speech brought by the advance of social media should be reversed due to the threat of misinformation.

Bosworth reiterated his discomfort over attempts to turn Facebook into an arbiter of what speech should be considered malicious and banned. Even using third-party checkers to do the job is far from a perfect solution, he said.

‘Our ability to know what is misinformation is itself in question, and I think reasonably so. I am very uncomfortable with the idea that we possess fundamental rightness even in our most scientific centres of study to exercise that kind of power on a citizen, another human, and what they want to say, and who they want to listen to,’ he said.

Less than 0.1% of readers support us even though we are 100% dependent upon reader support.

Donate: It is the generosity of our supporters and members that makes our vital work possible. As the storm clouds of crisis and the pain of injustice and persecution loom over our people, the potential and importance of our work grows day-by-day. There is no George Soros figure out there for nationalists, so we can only do what good people like you help us to do. Thank you for your faith and your generous commitment: contact Michael Walsh

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s