When you allow Big Tech be the arbiter of truth.

another fake meme debunked

he never said that

Living up to your name! :-D

he never said that in court.

meme is a lie.

show evidence.

SSSTTTFFFUUUPP <--- deleted LOL

just noticed the Cheshire Cat in the top right corner

That is the signature of the meme creator

Does this mean I can have my You Tube account back?

Beary Good Meme - 5vjzx6.jpg (click to show) - Upvote for you!

We always find it humorous how many so called patriots don't trust the government but rountinely want the government to fix their problems lol

Like it or not if you had bet who wins who would you lay your money on? The government or Mark?

Ultimately I would say the government, because they have more money and power. But I wouldn't doubt that they are in cohoots now with this new Meta thing.

No!!! have you not heard?????? Everything a right winger dislikes is a Democrat conspiracy and paid for by the likes of George Soros.

Here is a great punchline to all the crap they accuse everyone. Without Capitalism the people they hate so much would not have the money and power they do have

Exactly! Case in point- I recently shared this on my FB page, and it got the "false information" notice covering it up. How is this false? They are pushing this socialism crap so hard! It's like they want our country to fail...

Oohhh, can you link an article. I want details.

Here you go.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/12/stunning_facebook_court_filing_emadmitsem_fact_checks_are_just_a_matter_of_opinion.html

You can search and get other articles that say the same thing.

If you do a Google search for Facebook Facechecks are opinions you'll find several results. What's interesting is the top 5 or 6 are within the last day. And they all say exactly the same thing.

Not cover the story with the same results.

The words are exactly the same. In the same order. With the same links. And they all say they got the original story from this website: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/stunning-facebook-court-filing-admits-fact-checks-are-just-matter-opinion

Who in turn says they got it from... https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/12/stunning_facebook_court_filing_emadmitsem_fact_checks_are_just_a_matter_of_opinion.html

I bring this up because it's an old-school way to convince Google your story is legit. You circulate the same piece across several blogs that you control or you can pay to host the article. you provide all the links. All the graphics. they just give you the backlinks to make the story look real.

Because it must be real, there are all these results when I search for it! A fake story wouldn't rank so high on a Google search, would it?

This technique is why Google switched from vetting sites based on how many other places linked back to it, and started scanning pages for what's actually there.

If you do some Google searches for Stossel and Facebook, you'll find that reporting from various sources happened back in September. But nothing since then. If you go back to your original search, you'll see that same dividing line in dates. The top 5 or so stories are within the last day. All the other ones are from September.

That's extremely sus.

But the original article points to this as to where Facebook "admits" it's all just opinion: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3543&context=historical

And that's the court filing written by Stossels lawyer. Not Facebook's response.

I read through it a few times. I couldn't find where Facebook's lawyers say it's all opinion. There's parts where Stossel's lawyers say they mark something as false when it disagrees with their opinion.

I did a ctr+F for opinion. Couldn't find it. Did a ctr+F for fact check. Couldn't find it.

But I don't see it.

So... No. Facebook didn't say that in a court case.

We knew about that "independent fact-checker" issue for like since August.
If you really think this wasn't a thing then you have no clue how capitalist corporations operate. They flack the media and politicians. It's called PR and lobbying.

Just ask yourself one simple question: who pays the fact-checkers?
https://mobile.twitter.com/Mockingjay20211/status/1421557408480915457

questionable impartiality facebook's independent fact-checkers accused of collusion with J&J
https://evidencenotfear.com/facebooks-independent-fact-checker-accused-of-collusion-with-jj-rt-news/

The Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex (aka Big Pharma) has means of a $60 Billion(!) budget for an experimental vaccine. Don't you think a considerable piece of that huge cake would go into "study says","PR" and "fact-checking" to "sharpen the news cycle"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlL5_kKyLA0

Can you provide a link to that? Not the "news" site that has that quote. I've googled it several times, and only find more of the fake blogs linking back to Zero and then to American Thinker.

I have yet to find Facebook's response anywhere.

Stossel's claim, yes. https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3543&context=historical

But not the response from Zuck's lawyers.

Nope, the court document is the same one I already found. That's Stossel's filing. NOT Facebook's response.

Oh, they have no response now that you led the dumb horses to water?

😂 exactly

With all due respect, it is not the same document but it is from the same case as the one you linked.

This is a copy

https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/stossel-v-fb-response.pdf

Of the one from wattsup. It clearly has a different date and document number for the same case. However, as I cannot find it from a non-biased source, both wattsapp and reclaimthenet appear to be the only ones sharing the case file publicly, it may well be a forgery.

But it is not the same document listed below.

https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3543&context=historical

Yes, that's Stossel's claim.

Not Facebooks.

And Stossel may be correct for this individual incident, not every incident where fact-checkers removed or labeled a post as misleading.

I was wondering. I read the article three times and could only see that Stossel makes the claim, not Facebook's lawyers. Oof.

From what I understand after reading the article, and Whistlelock just confirmed, Stossel's lawyers are making a claim that Facebook's fact-checkers are opinion base, not Facebook's lawyers. Tsk.

I mean, yes, Stossel's claim may be valid for this particular incident but that's hardly an indictment on all fact-checkers nor is Facebook making such claim.

Is there a public copy of document 27 that isn’t from wattsup and reclaimthenet to verify this isn’t a forgery?

No results.

Really? Have you been banned for posting an opinion? I have, and so have a lot of people with the 'wrong' opinion.

Your feelings of being banned are irrelevant. Stossel wasn’t banned but rather his post labeled as misleading. You’re conflating the issue as well as evading the point in favor of an emotional response.

Stossel? Man I don't care about Stossel. I want my YT account back. And the 2020 election was stolen.

Cool beans.

That has nothing to do with what’s going on here.