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

[struth]

Colfax never shuts up but never says anything.

go figure.

he’s basically trying to say the law protect them no matter what they do which is just false.

But the little demafascist will do any ring to try and protect their donors and propagandist

 

[iceberg]

he’s basically trying to say the law protect them no matter what they do which is just false.

But the little demafascist will do any ring to try and protect their donors and propagandist

he will say it protects one side them mock you for daring to saw laws should be applied evenly.

dooshbags do this shit.

 

[colfax_m]

the law doesn’t protect them if they act like a publisher. By taking down things they disagree with, based on their opinion they are a publisher

If they didn’t act like a publisher, they wouldn’t need protection from any law since only the publisher could be sued.

Cite the case law and let me know if it’s before the law was passed.

Here’s the two most relevant cases to make this point.
Cubby v Compuserve: Compuserve couldn’t be sued because it didn’t take down any material. It was merely a distributor like a newsstand.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc

Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy: Prodigy took down some offensive material therefore it was a publisher and was sued for libel.

Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

After that, they passed section 230 to protect someone like Prodigy who wanted to moderate forums but not be able to be sued for everything posted.

 

[struth]

he will say it protects one side them mock you for daring to saw laws should be applied evenly.

dooshbags do this shit.

typical of leftist fascist

 

[Resnic]

Since when is a fact checker allowed to use opinion? Those 2 things are not the same thing at all.

 

[iceberg]

Since when is a fact checker allowed to use opinion? Those 2 things are not the same thing at all.

kinda why the lawyers screwed up, IMHO.

 

[blackhawk]

Me saying the Dallas Cowboys will win the Superbowl is an opinion me saying the Dallas Cowboys defeated the Washington football team today is a fact.

 

[iceberg]

Me saying the Dallas Cowboys will win the Superbowl is an opinion me saying the Dallas Cowboys defeated the Washington football team today is a fact.

the left is in overdrive re-defining words to fit their current emotional imbalance.

the "fact" facebook can call their opinions "fact checked" and lob them onto any and every post about a given topic they happen to disagree with is utter bullshit. AND NOW that we know these are "protected opinions" (all of ours are, no need to call theirs out as something special or gifted) they are not "fact checking" and it brings their activity into a brand new light.

S230, oddly enough, was given to NOT have to edit / moderate other posts. but that doesn't give THE POWER to someone, now does it?

 

[AZrailwhale]

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

Facebook calls opinion a fact, then uses that “fact” to first remove offending posts then ban the posters, if opinion is protected, the opinions of both sides should be protected.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The right has a huge problem with fact checkers because they highlight the many lies that the right spouts.

 

[whitehall]

It seems like all the self described "fact checkers" retired after Trump left the W.H.

 

[iceberg]

The right has a huge problem with fact checkers because they highlight the many lies that the right spouts.

I have a huge problem with ass monkies passing off their opinion as fact.

go count Biden's lies and get back to me.

 

[hadit]

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.

So FB was faced with a choice, admit that their "fact checks" are not factual but are merely opinions used to justify their suppression of inconvenient ideas or claim they are factual and risk losing the suit. They went with admitting they're blocking opinions based on other opinions. IOW, they're biased and have nothing to hide behind any more.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Just like CNN admitted IN COURT they broadcast OPINIONS and not facts….Facebook admitted IN COURT their “fact checkers” are just expressing their opinions.


Put another way, FACEBOOK ADMITTED IN COURT THEIR FACT CHECKERS ARE LIARS.

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[Road Runner]

And who didn't actually know this? Besides the democraps I mean.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Isnt it interesting that when these media companies are IN COURT, THEY ADMIT THEY ARE LIARS.

WAKE UP YOU DUMB FUCKING SHEEP.

THEY ARE TELLING YOU THEY LIE TO YOU!

What more do you dumb fucks need?

 

[ColonelAngus]

We all knew this, but for FAKEBOOK to admit it in court should wake up the brainwashed sheep.

HEY DUMBFUCKS, FAKEBOOK IS ON RECORD IN COURT ADMITTING THEY LIE.

 

[bripat9643]

The right has a huge problem with fact checkers because they highlight the many lies that the right spouts.

Facebook admitted that so-called "fact checkers" produce opinions, and nothing more.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Nevertheless, all the gullible progs in here bought it.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wrong. It's the other way around. It offers protect to websites that function as common carriers. That means they don't choose which content to publish.