John Stossel sues Facebook for their “Fact Checkers” saying he lied…Facebook said their Fact Checkers do not need to use facts…JUDGE AGREES WITH FB.

[BackAgain]

That was FACEBOOK‘S LEGAL ******* DEFENSE IN A COURT OF LAW….AND THEY WON!

They should be forced to put a disclaimer on their faux checking:

“Our fact checkers aren’t bound by or to facts.”

 

[Ralph Norton]

Another win for the good guys.

Which "good guys" would that be?

 

[WEATHER53]

Us thinkers always identified this censorship as political and feelings based.

 

[scruffy]

Does it make you upset?

Me? I don't fall for that nonsense.

Only libtards require fact checkers.

The rest of us do actual research.

Then it's a win for the good guys. I like to see bad people fail.

lol

I told you already, your gig is up.

Bleat all you want. No one cares about your bullshit anymore

We've seen what you're really made of. No one wants it.

 

[candycorn]

Which "good guys" would that be?

What side are you on? The other side are the good guys

 

[candycorn]

The rest of us do actual research

Really? You researched the 2020 election? Who won?

 

[scruffy]

Really? You researched the 2020 election? Who won?

Why don't you go ask your fact checkers.

 

[candycorn]

Why don't you go ask your fact checkers.

I did. They all agreed. Your blob lost. Bigly.

 

[scruffy]

I did. They all agreed. Your blob lost. Bigly.

lol

"They all agree".

No shit, Sherlock.

(slaps forehead)

 

[candycorn]

(slaps forehead)

I heard the hollow sound from here.

 

[pknopp]

It's been noted many times........Facebook can ban anything they want for any reason they want.

It's a pretty simple concept.

You can start a site and do the same.

 

[ColonelAngus]

This thread should end the use of “FACT CHECKERS” as a source on this site.

Facebook admitted in court that “FACT CHECKERS” lie.

You cannot get any more determitive than that.

RIP ”FACT CHECKERS”.

 

[Resnic]

I don't know the judge but they are either a democrat that hates republicans and willing to comprise their judgeship, or piss scared the fbi will start eyeballing them if they side with a republican against them.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's been noted many times........Facebook can ban anything they want for any reason they want.

It's a pretty simple concept.

You can start a site and do the same.

Yes, but they cannot be defamatory about it, or they can pay the price.

 

[struth]

As if we didn't need to know the demafascit propanda arm is factless

 

[WEATHER53]

It's been noted many times........Facebook can ban anything they want for any reason they want.

It's a pretty simple concept.

You can start a site and do the same.

They do not disclose their pre existing conditions when they gregariously invite you to join.
Come here and talk-well, oops not that kind of fact based talk.

 

[pknopp]

Yes, but they cannot be defamatory about it, or they can pay the price.

What price?

 

[pknopp]

They do not disclose their pre existing conditions when they gregariously invite you to join.
Come here and talk-well, oops not that kind of fact based talk.

I never have understood the issue. Find somewhere else to post.

 

[ColonelAngus]

“Fact checking” is just another way to lie and spread propaganda.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Judge Dismisses John Stossel’s Defamation Suit Against Facebook Over Fact-Checking

The judge found that labels attributing a post as "false" or "misleading" can't be defamatory.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Facebook says, we are not compelled to be truthful in our “FACT CHECKS”.

JUDGE AGREES.

Let me repeat…….Facebook said they lied in the ”Fact Check“ of Stossel because they can. The judge agreed with Facebook.

FACTCHECKERS.

I believe social media is cancer, thus, I give no ***** about superficial magaturd outrage about it.