[Aleksdev]

I think there is nothing wrong with fact checking the problem is that the fact checking that is being done often has a bias. One example that comes to mind was the Hunter Biden laptop that was dismissed as Russian propaganda by the fact checks. Turned out it was completely true.

[cafard]

Some items found on it were certainly his. How many lawyers would care to go into court with a piece of evidence having a chain of custody like that laptop's?

[Aleksdev]

I’m not a lawyer but he is on video in 4K doing illegal activities. I think it would be an open and shut case.

[Forgeties79]

>turns out it was completely true

Depends on what you mean by “completely true.” For instance, I heard all kinds of wild/absurd accusations like he had child porn all over it. If that were “completely true,” he’d be in cuffs. You need to give more context here.

[Aleksdev]

Sure, let me be clearer. The media said the laptop and the videos were Russian misinformation. Turns out that was his laptop and that was him in those videos.

[Forgeties79]

I'm going to be honest, this doesn't clear up much at all. What videos are you talking about? And when did Hunter et al say his laptop literally didn't exist?

What was disputed was what the repair tech said he found on it, as well as the fake news/gossip Hannity and co kept repeating without any evidence. Remember when a courier "lost" the supposedly incredibly damning and totally-proves-something-about-Hunter evidence en route to Hannity that they conveniently had no copies or backups of any kind? We still don’t even know what they allegedly contained!

Russian accounts absolutely amplified and generated misinformation around Hunter Biden in an attempt to hurt Joe Biden's election chances. They have consistently engaged in this behavior during our elections. There is a consensus among our intelligence organizations, it's old news.

Please present concrete claims and proof if you're going to say something is "completely true."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/oct/29/fox-news-tucke...

[Aleksdev]

>what videos

The videos of him smoking crack and negotiating with prostitutes in Ukraine.

>when did Hunter Biden deny the laptop

Joe Biden went on stage to debate Donald Trump where he publicly said that the laptop was “Russian disinformation”. Hunter Biden didn’t really deny it though he said he “wasn’t sure if it was his”.

Twitter refused to post the NY post story as well as banned users mentioning the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.

Obviously, this was a cover up. The laptop was his.

[Forgeties79]

Sounds like you should have no issue sharing these alleged videos or at least proof of their existence. Or any of your sources. I’m also not sure why Hunter’s well-documented and acknowledged addiction is such a fixation for the right.

I’m done man. Have a good one. I’ll gladly read any sources you send along.

[Aleksdev]

This is not a left or right issue. It’s the media and big tech covering up the facts that’s an issue. Sounds to me like you have a bias.

>videos don’t exist

Wait, do you seriously think these videos are fake? They were all over Reddit.

I can send you the link. I can’t post it here since it has nudity but I’m more then happy to send it to you. Is there an email or way you would like to receive these vids? (MP4 files).

[registeredcorn]

Although I think that most fact checking is biased, I am less concerned of bias, as long as people have a means and an ability to determine the truth of the thing. My concern then isn't with where bias exists, or in what direction, but instead with what the effect of fact checking results in. I think it would probably be a healthier outcome for truth learning if a "fact checker", whether it be a person or a machine, would instead point the user to instructions of how to research "For the field of (whatever) you will want to consult (this) area of research.", rather than "According to XYZ, (some person) said it's (that)."

Like, if I wanted to learn about something regarding the financial affairs of Europe in the 1300s, someone could just link me a quote that Professor so-and-so said something. But what if that professor is generally seen as a quack in that field? What if, after making that statement, he corrected himself a week later? What if that quote is simply decades old, and new information has come to light since then? What if my interest was specifically in one area of Europe, but his statement encompassed multiple countries, and parts of the Middle East? What if the statement being made had an assumption of "excluding other factors regarding wars A, B, C and plagues, 1, 2, 3" but was not in the quote that I was given?

These are all things that one might accidentally pick up and learn about during exploration of the truth, but be completely unaware of needing to know that when they first started.

To give a real world example of what I mean, consider this: A prominent New Testament scholar is Dr. Bart D Ehrman. In most debates I have seen posted on YouTube regarding whether The Bible is a trustworthy source will reference Dr. Ehrman at some time or another, by those in favor of Christianity and scriptural accuracy. The thing is, Dr. Ehrman is an strong opponent of Christianity and outspoken Atheist. Dr. Ehrman is a very big name in the field, and has a lot of criticisms against The Bible itself, but he also strongly affirms historical proof of Jesus' existence, life, and death - he's written at least one book on the matter[1]. If someone were to simply see the quote he has made, "but he did exist, whether we like it or not." the immediate assumption about his stance and belief is that he's a Christian, and therefore biased.

It's the loss of this context, this underlying breadth that I'm concerned with. That fact checking, in a very real sense, removes both the onus and need to read and determine for ones own self. That fact checking does too much, and gives too little; the worst of both. A fact without the background, a cause without explanation.

[1] https://www.bartehrman.com/did-jesus-exist/