[coryrc]

I'm so glad big tech screens videos for the correct political viewpoint. Nobody could have predicted events like this.

[jjulius]

They screened videos to ensure the facts pertaining to a medical procedure were correct. The fact check itself had nothing to do with politics.

[coryrc]

I missed this before, but the problem is _what_ they choose to fact check, not how; and this is evidence of how susceptible they are to political pressure (in a negative way, this time).

[jMyles]

> It had nothing to do with politics.

Surely you can see that this is impossible. There is no component of a video like this which has "nothing to do with politics."

[jjulius]

No, it's not. Please re-read my post. I said that "the fact check itself" is not political. I did not defend the political bias of the video itself.

You would also do well to actually read the article, especially the screenshot of the fact-check. You'll notice that the fact-check, per my post, simply addresses the facts of the issue and does not make a single political statement.

Edit: You also modified my statement when quoting me, making it more ambiguous than I had written it. Please be sure to quote people accurately in the future.

[bdamm]

Objective truth does exist. That abortion is medically necessary in certain cases, including before 24 weeks, is an objective truth. Those wishing for alternatives sometimes will claim that the technology for resolving cases without abortion could exist if we researched it might have a point, but it remains theoretical and therefore, given today's technology, abortion is sometimes medically required. The rest of it might be politics, but that doesn't mean we have to ignore objective facts.

[ceejayoz]

Let's say 30-40% of the population takes the political position that the eye is directly attached to the knee.

Saying that's not true isn't a political position, even if the falsehood it's debunking is one.