Have you noticed that any time you try to write anything about current hot button topics like mask mandates on a social media page like Facebook, the site will butt in to add its own “Factcheck” and accuse you of not knowing what you’re talking about? Go too far in expressing an opinion, and they might ban you completely for “spreading misinformation.”

But the question is getting asked more and more frequently: “Who are these omnipotent Facebook ‘fact-checkers,’ and who determined that their interpretation of a complicated issue is the absolute last word in objective truth?” After all, these are the same unimpeachable “fact-checkers” who slapped an “Inaccurate” label on President Trump’s prediction of a COVID-19 vaccine by the end of year, writing, “Widespread Covid-19 vaccination is not expected before mid-2021.” In FACT, Trump was right; they were wrong. But that hasn’t stopped them from continuing to play God and censor/natter/hector every post on Facebook, particularly any that vary even a hair from “progressive” leftist orthodoxy.

https://www.city-journal.org/facebook-and-its-fact-checkers-spread-misinformation?wallit_nosession=1

At that link is a fascinating article about the experiences City Journal had after one of their articles was labeled inaccurate by the Facebook “fact-checkers” when it wasn’t. They tried to appeal, and this story details what they learned about who these self-appointed guardians of truth are, how they operate, and the questionable, politically-biased “sources” they rely on when assessing what is and isn’t objectively true. This is why the Wall Street Journal labeled this as “counter-opinion masquerading as fact-checking.” It’s a blatant violation of Facebook’s legal obligation to act as a neutral platform, not a publisher, in order to maintain its federal protection from lawsuits.

Also, you’ll be interested to hear who makes the decision about whether they’re wrong when an appeal is launched. That’s right: it’s the “fact-checkers” themselves!

You’d have better luck getting your mother-in-law to admit she was wrong and you were right than getting them to admit the same thing.