[new2628]

This is an excellent summary, and I fully agree with it. As a modest addition: - In many important cases, there is no fact, just differing viewpoints and opinions. One man's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter. Violent insurgency for one, legitimate fight for liberty and justice for the other. In fact, reasonable people will even disagree on whether in some topic there are facts or only opinions, let alone about their truth value.

[olivermarks]

I think a better analogy is 'one man's investigative journalist is another man's conspiracy theorist'. We don't need #bigTech telling us which is which. Most of us can figure out who is dealing with real facts, events which have happened etc. The current crackdown on free speech is the equivalent to digital book burning. Free choice and free speech was ultimately reinstated after the european events during the 1930's.

[evan_]

This is absurd. There is an objective reality and things actually do happen. You can observe, record, and measure these things. Whether or not we say someone is a terrorist or a freedom fighter doesn't change the fact that they e.g. drove a truck bomb into a government building.

[new2628]

Yes, "they drove the truck ..." may be a fact, but why they did it, what they wanted to achieve with it, what effect it actually had, are opinion-based, and are far more interesting than the underlying objective fact.

Otherwise, you could report the JFK assassination by focusing on the weather that day and the tire pressure of his car, and the angle in which sunlight reflected on the windshield.