[moksly]

I don’t think fact checkers are an enemy of free speech. The entire foundation of science is build upon the process of being able to fact check each other’s findings.

There has also never really been a period in western civilisation where the news media wasn’t heavily controlled and fact checked by powerful editors.

The real issue isn’t fact checkers, it’s that Facebook isn’t held accountable.

If we want a functioning democracy, we need to stop giving major corporations a pass because the manipulation that happens on their platforms is created and run by users. That’s not how we treated News Papers and it’s not how we should treat Social Networks. If Facebook has really been a knowing participant in genocides, then Mark Zuckerberg belongs in the Haag as far as I am concerned.

[nradov]

The scientific method does not presume to produce or check "facts". Real science is based on probabilities. Individuals have to set their own criteria as to when level of probability they want to classify as a fact.

[sewellstephens]

Fact checkers are totally an enemy of free speech. They flag posts saying that is so called "information" is inaccurate and that people shouldn't be able to see it.

If it is false is it really right to flag the post. I mean yes it is false but as Americans we are suppost to have free speech when we don't.

[herbstein]

> If it is false is it really right to flag the post. I mean yes it is false but as Americans we are supposed to have free speech when we don't.

Good thing nothing that happens on Facebook ever spills over into other countries.

On a non-sarcastic note, I find it interesting that you didn't engage at all with the comment about Facebook and genocides. It's easy to sit in an ivory tower and play philosopher on topics of corporate censorship like this. What's less interesting, but far more useful, is evaluating whether Facebook should do more to moderate when their platform is actively used to orchestrate genocides in several separate places on earth.

[jackson1442]

> If it is false is it really right to flag the post. I mean yes it is false but as Americans we are suppost to have free speech when we don't.

Your first amendment right to free speech is a limited freedom from the government stating that the government cannot stifle or compel your speech. Facebook is not (yet) the government, so the 1A protections do not apply to Facebook. After all, if Facebook were forced to host content they didn't want to host, that would be considered compelled speech.

I would argue that if a post is verifiably, unequivocally false it is right to flag it as such. Maybe limit its reach in "discovery" platforms but still show it to followers/friends. This is a very, very small percentage of posts (think: "the earth is flat," not "do vaccines really work?"). These warnings should link to reputable, peer-reviewed research as a primary source and a reputable secondary source for those who don't want to read the research paper.

[ErikVandeWater]

> I would argue that if a post is verifiably, unequivocally false it is right to flag it as such.

The incentive to move the bar lower will lead to constant lowering of the bar until we're back to where we are today.