[marginalia_nu]

That is a true statement, but it is not a fact in the epistemological sense. When we say a statement is true, what we mean is that the statement agrees with the facts.

Or flipped around: The facts are the things that true statements correspond to, the things in themselves.

[YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo]

I think we have different oppinions of what the word fact means but the general consens is something like this. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

[marginalia_nu]

Here is a more nuanced take: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/

There is serious problems with facts merely being true statements if you start poking at the edge cases a bit.

Consider that there are things that are, and statements that are true. If the two are the same, then all statements that are true must also be things that are. But it is true that if I were to lick my own forehead, it would become wet; yet I cannot lick my own forehead. This is an example of something that is true, yet cannot be. The statements that are true is a larger category than the things that are.

[YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo]

I totally understand your standpoint and I will dive deeper with your provided link but as I said before for the general public a true statement is indeed a fact.

And just for shits and giggles https://metro.co.uk/2018/12/03/man-claims-to-be-only-person-... haha

[marginalia_nu]

Isn't that the entire point of this "fact" checking, to raise the truth above the myriad of things the general public merely believes to be true?

[YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo]

I believe you have it in reverse. "fact" checking is there to show a minority of people that the information they are about to consume is against what is believed to be true by the scientific community and the public at this point in time.

[marginalia_nu]

Surely, what is true is not determined by what the majority believes?