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

[Maxdeath]

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.

The problem appears to be that Facebook seems unable to understand opinion And fact. The two are different words and have different meanings. Opinion is protected. Facebook calling their fact checkers opinions for whatever reason means that they are censoring because the people doing it have no leg to stand on when they claim fact checking

 

[bripat9643]

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

You don't give a fuck about property rights.

Who are you trying to fool?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wrong again, moron. I can sue any publisher on the internet, except Facebook, Twitter, youTube, etc.

 

[WEATHER53]

We knew that and said that before the election. It’s a one way street of communication

 

[bripat9643]

100% wrong. Completely backwards.

Yes you are.

 

[bripat9643]

if they are deleting content, based on their opinions…they are deciding what is published and what isn’t…hence they are not protected by the law granting them an exemption from lawsuits

I've explained that to this dumbshit Colfax 1000 times already.

 

[WEATHER53]

All these lib loon sites try to pretend that opinion must be fact. Now why would otherwise reality deniers do that?

 

[bripat9643]

They aren’t denying you rights. There is no right to post on Facebook or any other website you don’t personally own.

Under Rule 230 there is, unless you also concede that people have the right to sue Facebook

 

[bripat9643]

If they didn’t delete content, there would be no law needed to grant them exemption from lawsuits.

The law only exists to give websites the ability to delete content while protecting them from such lawsuits.

Wrong, dumbass. Website have always had that right.

 

[bripat9643]

Not sure about changing your post, but that’s not the question here.

They have every right to add their notations to your post. Your post exists in their website. They can do basically whatever they want with it.

Read the TOS next time.

If they do that, then they can be sued. That's the bottom line.

 

[bripat9643]

no that’s not why the law exist dumbass

the law exist to exempt them from lawsuits based on what is posted

when they start deleting things they are deciding what is published and what isn’t
…hence publisher and thus the law doesn’t apply

i get you want to protect your big business donors and propagandist but the law is the law

You're wasting bandwidth on this dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

Let’s say the law never existed. No section 230.

If a website never deleted anything, nothing, everything stayed up, then they could never be sued for defamation based on what’s posted because they would not be considered a publisher.

So the law would not exist to do so. There is no law necessary to do so.

I'll bet you thought that made sense.

 

[bripat9643]

Only IF they took down any content or any poster.

If a website just leave all content up, then they could never be sued because they’re not a publisher. Even without the law.

The law was specifically designed to give websites the ability to take down content and NOT be liable as a publisher.

You're such a dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

Colfax never shuts up but never says anything.

go figure.

He says the same wrong thing over and over until you get fed up.

 

[Lastamender]

Facts are Opinions, Up is Down, Black is White and all other sorts of silliness....

Poor baby. Lies are lies.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You're a dumbass. Everything you post is wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Facts are Opinions, Up is Down, Black is White and all other sorts of silliness....

And you're an idiot.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Lefties, just fucking admit your media outlets FUCKING LIE.

When in court, they always fall back to "WE SHARE OPINIONS!"

Just like what the DNC said in COURT...they said they FUCKED BERNIE SANDERS BECAUSE THEY ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO FUCK BERNIE SANDERS.

Yet you dumb assholes continue ot believe them.....EVEN WHEN THEY TELL YOU THEY ARE LYING.

How fucked is that?

 

[ColonelAngus]

How many of you dumb fucking commies trusted the FACEBOOK FACT CHECKERS? You know who you are. Yes, you are truly that dumb.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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

Their opinions are supported by facts dopey.Your opinions are supported by bullshit you find on the internet.