This one gets harder as who has the better/right-er numbers? Is Bolosonaro lying? Probably. But how do you tell? Who's fact-checking the fact-checkers?
But the clear-cut cases aren't actually the problem. You don't need to censor things that are so obviously stupid. The bottle of Lysol says things like "Hazard to Humans and Domestic Animals" and "call a poison control center" etc.
To the point that it's incredible that the few people who actually do it are even telling the truth about why, instead of being cases of insane parents looking for a cover story when they want to murder their kids, or Munchausen by proxy or something like that.
Meanwhile the same principle gets you absolutely nothing in all of the non-obvious cases, because when the answer is non-obvious (and therefore much more problematic if wrong) then Facebook doesn't have it either.
Enter "US-linked Australian church fined US$98,000 for selling bleach as coronavirus ‘miracle cure'"
citation: https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/australasia/article/3084250/u...
And thats just a single example of content that can get people killed.
We also already have FB playing MinTruth as well here with "Post shared incorrect number of deaths caused by respiratory diseases in Ceará"
citation: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/scienceandhea...
This one gets harder as who has the better/right-er numbers? Is Bolosonaro lying? Probably. But how do you tell? Who's fact-checking the fact-checkers?