[tallgiraffe]

It is shocking to me that some people actually prefer to rely on "fact checkers," as if those people are somehow more intelligent, and less biased than the readers themselves.

In fact, the idea that someone could check these facts for you, almost explicitly stipulates that you, the reader, are somehow less capable. But we are not talking about changing oil in the car, or doing brain surgery, we are talking about maybe the only thing that each individual can do on their own, unsupervised, to the beset of their ability - use their brain.

This is not going to end well.

[UncleMeat]

> It is shocking to me that some people actually prefer to rely on "fact checkers," as if those people are somehow more intelligent, and less biased than the readers themselves.

In the large majority of topics, there exist huge numbers of people who are far more expert than I am. I don't just prefer expert "fact checkers" in fields like medicine, law, science, plumbing, wiring, etc., I depend on them. Similarly, there are certainly journalists who have much more time and experience when it comes to these topics than I have.

[anigbrowl]

If I have to investigate and validate or debunk every claim by myself, I'd never have time for anything else. I do a great deal of this already but it's sort of naive and egotistical to think one's capacities in this area are unlimited.

And to the extent that people do, it subjects them to manipulation - a strategy crudely referred to as 'flooding the zone with shit' in order to waste the time of the most discriminating and thoughtful on studying bullshit claims which take far less time to produce than to evaluate.

[eternalban]

The end: a pseudo theocracy in technocratic garb for infantalized adults.

[eternalban]

qed: not a single attempt to articulate a rebuttal by the downvote sock puppets.