MovieChat Forums > Politics > What's wrong with fact checking claims?

What's wrong with fact checking claims?


I'm repeatedly being told by one poster in particular that fact checkers are "opinionated propaganda created to refute the truth."

https://library.csi.cuny.edu/misinformation/fact-checking-websites

Why would he say that about them all? It seems to me a lack of support for his views just results in confirmation bias against fact checkers per se, a circular argument if you like.

Interesting work here:

https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/fact-checking-fact-checkers-a-data-driven-approach/

Looked at four fact checkers (Snopes, PolitiFact, Logically, and the Australian Associated Press FactCheck) using a data-driven approach. "After adjusting ... systematic discrepancies, we found only one case out of 749 matching claims with conflicting verdict ratings."

While here we read

"Fact checkers tend to agree on validity of news claims, researchers say"

https://www.psu.edu/news/information-sciences-and-technology/story/true-fact-checkers-tend-agree-validity-news-claims

see also here for issues associated with borderline messages (e.g the tag 'mostly true):

https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/the-presence-of-unexpected-biases-in-online-fact-checking/

Where it was found that online users exposed to the fact-checking tag Lack of Evidence are more likely to develop a negative stance toward a claim than those exposed to Mixed Evidence. I know I do.

reply

Because without cross checking multiple sources you cannot tell which fact checkers actually check facts and which ones are trying to falsify facts by claiming that their "fact check" has a different outcome.
Almost all of them are private businesses, all vulnerable to corruption and there is no independent voice that would be totally trustworthy.
Even if a fact checker has been correct for a long time, you never know whether or not their next check will have been corrupted.
Just look at how many self nominated "fact checkers" are declaring peer reviewed science to be false.

I remember a political discussion in German TV some years ago between the party in government (right wing at the time), the left wing opposition and the so called far right party.
The party in government claimed they would be center-right, the left party showed them a fact check in form of a graph similar to the politicalcompass, showing the government party as the furthest right of all German parties, and the guy from the so called far right (on the graph shown as only halfway to the right but high up authoritarian) literally said "we have alternative facts and you're both far left".

reply

without cross checking multiple sources you cannot tell which fact checkers actually check facts and which ones are trying to falsify facts by claiming that their "fact check" has a different outcome.


I can see that argument but, if as a group fact checkers usually agree with each other as was found, can't we take that as likely a sounder verdict on things?

the guy from the so called far right (on the graph shown as only halfway to the right but high up authoritarian) literally said "we have alternative facts and you're both far left".


This reminds me of a famous occasion in the last Trump admin when "alternative facts" was used by U.S. Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway during a Meet the Press interview on January 22, 2017, in which she defended White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's false statement about the attendance numbers of Donald Trump's inauguration as President of the United States.

self nominated "fact checkers"


While I would accept that there is no official 'fact checker's licence' surely for most purposes we can distinguish between the amateur and the professionals? The outlier crackpot and the journalist in a respected organisation?

there is no independent voice that would be totally trustworthy.


This may strictly be true, but the danger is believe no voice is trustworthy, for the reasons you suggest, no matter how remote a prospect and ultimately this is corrosive to democracy.



reply

That's why I always crosscheck multiple sources.
A group of fact checkers can still be a group all copying and pasting from the same source and the source might not be reliable.

A good way for me to fact check something is take media from opposite sides of the political spectrum, like FOX News and MSNBC, ignore the parts where they say different things and the part where both of them say the same thing is probably true.
Another good way is simple logic, because many times fake news make no logic sense, but on that you have to make sure not to fall for logical fallacies.

reply

All good points and advice. In taking media from opposite sides of the political spectrum however looking for where both of them say the same thing, the trouble is that in the US at least things are so polarised that common ground can be scarce.,,

reply

I know, that's somewhat better in Germany, but that's just another thing where I'm extending my "multiple sources".
I'm not limited to websites in English, I can check in German and Italian and if I ask my wife for translations she can fill in French and Spanish.
When I see some US News from CNN in a clip on YT or something like that, the first thing I usually do is check the websites of German and Swiss public TV, because by my experience these two are correct more often than any other media I know of.

When it comes to science, any news that is based on science, I totally trust in peer reviewed science, in case there's a paper published there I don't need fact checkers.
I love the YT channel of potholer54
https://www.youtube.com/@potholer54
because he has the habit of never making statements of his own, but taking claims from someone, researching where that one has his "facts" from, pointing out what that source is and then pointing to what the actual peer reviewed science says about that.

reply

In taking media from opposite sides of the political spectrum

And how many of your listed fact checkers are right leaning? …

Confirmation Bias Noted.

reply

how many of your listed fact checkers are right leaning? …


My "independent/critical thinking" is that they must all be setting themselves a standard to be objective, and moreover succeeding in the eyes of their customers. or their business model would be compromised.

reply

So all of them are biased. Got it.

None of those fact checkers are objective.

Fact Checkers don’t have customers, they have mindless drones.

reply

My "independent/critical thinking"- you know, that which you so recommend, suggests otherwise.

reply

In that case, I don’t expect you to cite anymore propaganda or request sources from others.

reply

Independent/critical thinking does not exclude quite reasonably asking for substantiation for claims, and the showing of sources. Sorry about that. Good luck with your alethophobia btw.

reply

Except that Independent/critical thinking doesn't require either.

reply

"A 'critical thinker' does not blindly accept a theory, argument or opinion until they have verified the data or hypothesis on which it is based.,,Focus on evidence. It is important to scrutinise any claim about a particular issue, Arguments need to be supported and substantiated; theories proven; references, facts and bias checked; and research methods investigated..."

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/students/success-guide/pgt/study-and-research-skills/critical-thinking-and-critical-ability/

"Rejecting unsubstantiated claims, such as psychological misconceptions and pseudoscience, is associated with being more inclined and better able to think critically."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/critical-thinking-in-psychology/critical-thinking-and-the-rejection-of-unsubstantiated-claims/D603C5E4563785527F3A21E126BDF22A

"Critical reasoning and fact-checking are closely related. Critical reasoning involves evaluating the validity and reliability of the information, while fact-checking involves verifying the accuracy of information. Both processes involve questioning assumptions, evaluating evidence, and making informed judgments based on logical reasoning and empirical evidence."

https://fact.technology/learn/critical-reasoning-and-its-correlation-with-fact-checking/

My independent/critical thinking says all of the above seems reasonable, required and practical - and that I have much more fruitful things to do than point out the obvious. So no more from me to you on this thread.

reply

Thanks for confirming my previous reply.

reply


With that logic you could claim literally anything is not true if you dont want it to be .
See TVfan for examples

reply

this also applies to liberal news
see ABCNBCCBSPBSCNNMSNBC/HATENIGHTTV/SNL for examples.

reply

Liars don't want to be fact checked. Zuckerberg is appeasing Trump and his cult.

reply

Says the #1 liar of MC 🤣

reply

You're a troll, liar and cultist. You have never linked to any so-called lie that you claim I made. I bet you're rb
also overweight, toothless and poor, also.

reply

https://moviechat.org/user/58ad1c70d1e5e20011e21094

reply

I knew you couldn't link to anything specific. You've proven yourself to be a slanderer.

reply

Well. I would always hesitate calling anyone a liar outright. It is usually more that they just don't want to accept things inconvenient to their preconceptions. The fact that the poster I have in mind rejects all fact checkers outright is more likely to be because, outside his immediate bubble, in matters of fact hardly anyone else agrees with him.

Zuckerberg is appeasing Trump


Reluctantly I would tend to agree with you. Clegg's leaving and Z's contribution to Trump's funds are all of a piece. Ultimately though the removal of quality control is self defeating, a race to the bottom. I don't agree at all with those who see fact checking as 'censorship'.

reply

hardly anyone else agrees with him

They don’t need to, they should think for themselves.

Independent/Critical thinking instead of allowing fact checkers or perceived authoritative sources to think for them.

You should free yourself from "the hive mind" and use your own brain🧠

reply

“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan

reply

That’s precisely what you should be saying about all the opinionated fact checkers.

reply

Your cult leader Trump glorifying his mob beating and killing police officers on January 6 is a fact. His desire to release these criminals from prison and try to honor their treason is also factual. Continue to defend your cult leader's criminality.

reply

More Keeliar lies.

The Trump supporters didn’t kill any police officers; it was the other way around.

reply

Explain why Trump is calling them his supporters and wants to release them from prison.

reply

"By the end of his term, Trump had accumulated 30,573 untruths during his presidency — averaging about 21 erroneous claims a day."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/

reply

Propaganda.

reply

Back up what you say with verifiable facts and not only a meaningless word.

This is the link to every lie he made from 1-20-27 to 1-20-21. Choose one and we will discuss using verifiable factual resources.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?itid=lk_inline_manual_11

Put up or shut up!

reply

You are wasting your time with tv. His solipsism means he only recognises his own intelligence as source for anything.(Unless of course, as we saw from his recent long contribution of a list condemning feminism, he tries to pass off uncredited sources as his own)

reply

His cult leader Trump dictates his reality. Fact checking and critical thinking are the enemy to a cult leader and their brainwashed followers.

reply

Establishment Propaganda.

reply

No, this observation is all from me.

reply

No, you just internalised the establishment propaganda. Same as Skavau.

reply

Thank you for your opinion. No thank you to more trolling,

reply

It’s not an opinion, it’s a description - you are nothing more than a fully indoctrinated establishment drone, incapable of independent thought, imprisoned by your own smugness.

reply

Thank you for a description, which is yet more opinion. Do you actually have an argument, or are you just going with insults now?

reply

No opinion, no insults. Just a description.

Now, when you’re fucking your fellow Sisters, do you play butch or bitch, or just ‘whatever’..?

reply

Whatever .. and you are back to trolling again.

reply

A more accurate description is that flimflam is a Google search result incarnate.

reply

I also use DuckDuckGo lol . Would that more on this board use a proper search engine and not just X and YouTube - or in one notable case, refuse to accept any sources or checkers but their own opinions..

reply

DDG is compromised since it uses Google results.

Brave and Yandex are the best options.

reply

How would you know if you don't use any sources other than yourself?

reply

DDG relies on Bing, not Google, and yes, it’s compromised. Brave is solid, while Yandex is decent — though it has its limitations. Don’t expect to uncover anything that Russia prefers to keep hidden.

reply

I have compared between DDG and Google; both use most of the same results.

Google AI will tell you that DDG doesn't use Google so all other AI will output the same. More proof that all AIs are compromised.

The real proof is when "we" do our own tests.

reply

He really is. There’s a wonderful irony to how well his username lends itself to a nickname that so completely captures his character. Almost as if his subconscious was working on a higher level that he couldn’t, in his smugness and narcissism, perceive.

It’s also interesting how someone pretentiously calling himself ‘filmflaneur’ has seemingly no interest in film - just like Skavau…

reply

There’s a wonderful irony to how well his username lends itself to a nickname that so completely captures his character.


You mean like this?

"we’re taking a moment to shine the spotlight on the mighty Melton and how it got so darn thick."
https://www.heddels.com/2019/12/what-is-melton-wool/

someone pretentiously calling himself ‘filmflaneur’ has seemingly no interest in film


That would be because this a politics board lol and, in case you forgot:

https://www.imdb.com/user/ur0867063/?ref_=nv_usr_prof_2


just like Skavau…

Troll.

reply

You mean like this?

No.


That would be because this a politics board lol and, in case you forgot:

https://www.imdb.com/user/ur0867063/?ref_=nv_usr_prof_2

That proves fuck all, you started an account 5 months ago and no doubt took the name of an existing imdb user to pretend that you’re interested in film, when in fact you’ve scarcely if ever posted on a film board here, you’re all about peddling your nasty political agenda 24/7 (just like Skavau)

Also, that imdb account is an old one, do you really expect people to believe that someone with your level of stupidity, obnoxiousness, pretentiousness and limp grasp of English spelling and grammar could be any older than 16?

🤣🤣🤣

reply

That proves fuck all, you started an account 5 months ago and no doubt took the name of an existing imdb user to pretend [blah]


Go again to my profile page. Look carefully at my review of Jellykettu (top of the list). Whose name do you see inserted on the last line?

Also, that imdb account is an old one, do you really expect people to believe that someone with your level of stupidity, obnoxiousness, pretentiousness and limp grasp of English spelling and grammar could be any older than 16?


Oh dear.

reply

Go again to my profile page. Look carefully at my review of Jellykettu (top of the list). Whose name do you see inserted on the last line?

No.

You live on a movie forum and you have nothing to say about movies, only driving your sicko political agenda 24/7.


Oh dear.

Oh dear indeed, it’s laughably tragic that you expect anyone to believe you’re any older than 16.

reply

No.


LOL Don't worry; I am sure others will.

You live on a movie forum and you have nothing to say about movies,


I am more on the politics board where movies are rarely relevant. See how it works? But:

https://moviechat.org/bd0000007/Film-General/66cf9929d0e0cb197ae15b87/Fan-edit-or-the-real-thing

it’s laughably tragic that you expect anyone to believe you’re any older than 16.


Whether 16 or 66 that does not make what I say necessarily wrong.

reply

LOL Don't worry; I am sure others will.

Yeah I’m sure other people will waste their time ferreting around the internet to determine whether some teenage internet maggot is this account or that account. Good luck with that 🤣


I am more on the politics board where movies are rarely relevant. See how it works? But:

Whatever. None of that refutes the fact that you live on a movie forum and you have nothing to say about movies, only driving your sicko political agenda 24/7 (just like Skavau).


Whether 16 or 66 that does not make what I say necessarily wrong.

What you say is wrong, ignorant, pretentious, juvenile and obnoxious… and therefore it’s inconceivable that you could be anything older than 16.

reply

Yeah I’m sure other people will waste their time ferreting around the internet to determine whether


..whether there was any truth in your absurd suggestion I had stolen the identity of someone on IMDb, when I proved definitively not, and you refused to even look. you mean?

some teenage internet maggot ... it’s inconceivable that you could be anything older than 16.


Since my IMDb account has been open for over 20 years, and I shown irrefutably that it is mine, now you are just being silly. And an ad hominem is not an argument.

None of that refutes the fact that you live on a movie forum and you have nothing to say about movies

Didn't see the link I provided to a movie thread I started then? Also, as I said, here on the politics board movies rarely come up. Give it a rest.

What you say is wrong, ignorant, pretentious, juvenile and obnoxious


Since now insults are all you have left, that's all from me in this exchange. Have a nice day.

reply

..whether there was any truth in your absurd suggestion I had stolen the identity of someone on IMDb, when I proved definitively not, and you refused to even look. you mean?

No, Cathy Newman, I don’t mean that mound of fetid straw you just pulled out of your ass.


Since my IMDb account has been open for over 20 years, and I shown irrefutably that it is mine, now you are just being silly. And an ad hominem is not an argument.

Cool story, Skavau 👍🏻


Didn't see the link I provided to a movie thread I started then? Also, as I said, here on the politics board movies rarely come up. Give it a rest.

The only link I need to determine your posting history is your username, and you have fuck all to say about movies, you’re here 24/7 peddling your basic bitch political agenda.


Since now insults are all you have left, that's all from me in this exchange. Have a nice day.

Yeah, I’d probably run away too of I’d humiliated myself as badly as you have here.

reply


"whether there was any truth in your absurd suggestion I had stolen the identity of someone on IMDb, when I proved definitively not?"

I don’t mean that


Really? With your initial words "I’m sure other people will waste their time ferreting around the internet to determine whether some teenage internet maggot is this account or that account. " To what were you referring then?

Cool story, Skavau 👍🏻


Troll.

you have fuck all to say about movies,


https://moviechat.org/bd0000007/Film-General/66cf9929d0e0cb197ae15b87/Fan-edit-or-the-real-thing

Second time of proving to the contrary. Sorry about that.

Yeah, I’d probably run away too


I came back, just to give you a double tap.

reply

You said

that's all from me in this exchange

and then came back to fart out more unconvincing excuses.

This isn’t going well for you.

reply

I can see how it is annoying for you. Sorry about that.

reply

On the contrary, watching you make a tit of yourself as you second guess yourself and backtrack is wonderfully amusing.

Apology not accepted.

Now, when you’re fucking your fellow Sisters, do you play butch or bitch, or just ‘whatever’..?

reply

Whatever.

reply

I get what you're saying. I'm not confident that they are the same, but the timing of flimflam's appearance here and Skavau's departure understandably has raised some heads.

reply

The only difference between the two is the coprolalia, if not for that; I would be convinced that they’re both the same person. Flimflam is just a clone of skavau.

reply

If Skavau had a sock he would deliberately try to make it appear different, so a change in language would be inconclusive.

It’s the almost identical ideology, motivations and tactics that really get the noggin joggin…

reply

Fact checking and critical thinking are your enemy because you live in a self-imposed bubble. You fear truth and reality.

reply

Yes. Liars like you just slink away like the coward you are.

reply

You have never provide a link to any lie. Do so now! You can't because you're the liar, troll and slanderer!

reply

Wrong. I proved years ago that you lied and said I make racist posts and when you were confronted to prove it, you slunk away MANY times then denied it, then you reported me. Go ahead and lie about it AGAIN, lying coward.

reply

Your hatred against Palestinians = racist posts

I'm still waiting for your link, you lying slanderous troll!

"you reported me"

You must have done something wrong since the moderators are contacting you. They know you're a troll, also.

reply

I can show he is, too. No doubt if he replies here it will be exemplified, yet again.

reply

Big Sister to the rescue! 🤣

reply

Hahahaha skavau! Just admit it.

reply

It's very obvious he's racist against Palestinians. He supports dog-whistling right-wing extremists which says it all.

reply

I've said numerous times that I don't hate the Palestinian people but you, on the other hand have had many opportunities to deny that you want Israel wiped off the map but you don't. Why? Because it's true. Yes, you reported me because you're a lying coward who NEVER produced a single racist post made by me and you hated the fact that your were and still are a proven liar. You know it. I know it and so does everyone else.

You're the biggest lying troll here.

reply

Ignoring and discounting Palestinian suffering and genocide = racism.

Your pretending that Palestinians aren't presently the victims of genocide and ethnic-cleansing with the ultimate goal of wiping Palestine and Palestinians off the map = racism.

Your pretending that Israel is the victim when they have been supported by two world powers supplying them with arms and have recently slaughtered 40,000+ mainly civilians based on religious persecution = racism

You're a lying slanderous troll and racist.

reply

YOU are the (proven) lying, slanderous, racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American,troll, and you still haven't denied that you want Israel wiped of the map. You're a genocidal, murder loving psychopath.

Oh, did I mention that you're a PROVEN liar?

reply

Again, you cannot provide any links!

😴
Your childish ignorant rants and name-calling are extremely boring.

I'm going to give you a chance to prove you're not the stupid idiot that your posts indicate by challenging you to a dialogue and debate.

I doubt that you'll take the challenge because I believe you're basically a stupid person without the ability to think.

But, here it is anyway:

Why do you believe it's ok for mainly Russians, Ukrainians and Poles to travel from Europe and establish an ethnocentric settler-colonialist country in the Middle East while ethnic-cleansing the indigenous population of Palestinians?

Answer the above question and then it'll be my turn to reply. Keep this dialogue civil.

reply

Prefacing a "civil" dialog with this?

I believe you're basically a stupid person without the ability to think.


You already broke your own rule. You want to talk? Admit that you want Israel wiped off the map.

reply

Your inability to defend your stance is proving me correct.

One more chance:

Why do you believe it's ok for mainly Russians, Ukrainians and Poles to travel from Europe and establish an ethnocentric settler-colonialist country in the Middle East while ethnic-cleansing the indigenous population of Palestinians?

reply

No, liar! Don't act like you're the bastion of civility here, especially right after (attempting) to insult me right before telling ME to be civil.

You're the one who is not civil and a bald faced liar. You said years ago that I made racist posts and when I asked you to prove it many times you slunk away like the lying coward you are. You never owned up to your lie and now I'm supposed to play by your rules? No.

Also, I'm not going to respond to a straw man scenario you put together to further your anti-Semitic agenda. The Jews were given Israel by God (I don't care if you think you're an atheist) and Israel is recognized as a country by the vast majority of the world so your opinion means nothing. You want them wiped off the map which is WAY worse than anything you think they did. You support the wholesale, unprovoked slaughter of over 1400 Jews, many of whom were women and children. The Israeli government has been more than accommodating to the Palestinians. Much more so than ANY Muslim nations would be to them and you know it! They have the right to defend themselves from the savages who throw gays off buildings, use hospitals and schools as human shields and who treat women as slaves/property.

I know you will never admit any of this, just like you NEVER condemned the antifa/BLM murders, rape and destruction of BILLIONS of dollars of government as well as private property, which is why I never bother with debating you. The only reason I'm saying any of this now, is to illustrate to people who don't know your history, what a deranged, racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American, fringe kook leftist and proven liar you are.

reply

In brief, your answer is "because God said so". That's laughable!

1. Islamists say they fly planes into building "because God said so". Son of Sam killed women "because God said so". Parents kill their own kids "because God said so". Are you saying they're all justified, too?

2. Theodor Herzl and the other original founders of Israel were atheists and communists. They didn't believe in God! Their model for Israel was Marxism. The Kibbutz is a Communist concept.

They wanted to redefine being Jewish from religion to an ethnicity.

You can't have it both ways! You can't be an atheist and then say "because God said so".

3. Zionism is a political ideology which is the opposite of the teachings of Judaism, a religon. Judaism states that Jews should NOT have a homeland until their messiah comes. Judaism also states that it's important for Jews to live with nonJews in order to teach and spread compassion and humanity which are the most important tenets in Judaism.

4. Ask any "Palestinian" where their grandparents were born and lived and they'll reply Palestine. Ask the majority of "Israelis" the same question and you'll hear Poland, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, etc.. Israelis are foreign invaders. Palestinians have continuously lived there for thousands of years. Palestinians have the right to defend their borders against invaders.

Israel is a fabrication. Historically, Israel didn't exist. There were two small kingdoms of Judea and Samaria in the larger region of Palestine.

Netanyahu's real name is Mileikowsky and his family is from Poland. Golda Meir's real name is Goldie Mabovitch and she was from Russia. They all have fake names. They are Europeans pretending to be Middle Eastern. Modern Hebrew is a fake language which was reconstructed. Many words are actually European - mainly German and Russian with some Arabic grammar.

Israel destroyed hundreds of Palestinian towns, villages and cities and renamed them with fake Hebrew names.

It's Israelis who have been erasing Palestine from the map!!!

5. Einstein who escaped Nazi Germany had compared the political ideology and policies of Zionism to Nazism and Fascism and predicted its eventual destruction.

"Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party", a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a "Leader State" is the goal."
https://archive.org/details/AlbertEinsteinLetterToTheNewYorkTimes.December41948

6. Zionism states only Jews can have basic human rights. Jim Crow laws against nonJews exist in Israel. NonJews can be arrested and imprisoned indefinitely without any evidence, charges or trial. NonJews are forbidden to walk or drive on certain streets even in the West Bank.

7. Most Palestinians live in a concentration camp. Israel tests bombs on Palestinian civilians and then promote them as "battle-tested". Israel is breaking international law and committing genocide as determined by multiple international agencies.

8. Some of those Israelis killed on Oct 7 were killed by IDF because Israel has a policy to kill their own people rather than let them be taken as hostage.

For years Israelis openly discussed completely destroying Gaza in order to ethnic-cleanse it. But Gazans refused to leave and Arab countries said they won't help Israel ethnic-cleanse. You have to ask why did Israelis ignore women IDF about an impending attack, refuse arming them and took over 7 hours to arrive.

9. Stop confusing Judaism with Zionism. Most Zionists are Protestant. The first Zionists were British Protestants. Genocide Joe is clearly a Zionist. Most Jews are NOT Israelis and most in the U.S. don't support Israel's right-wing Netanyahu government.

10. Israel is not an ally. They have attacked and murdered American soldiers so screw them.

11. Israel is a racist, ethno-nationalist extremist right-wing Fascist state which persecutes most of its population. It's a settler-colonialist project doomed to fail since its goal is to commit genocide and ethnic-cleanse in order to steal land from the indigenous people.

reply

12. Israeli government monitored who took the Covid vaccine. (Invasion of privacy). They literally prevented Haredim Jews from leaving their neighborhoods with soldiers, drones, and other surveillance technology because most had refused to be vaccinated. This is the government that you're supporting, Pure Fascist!

reply

Yes, people have killed, are killing and will kill "in the name of God" but the one, true, living God said "thou shalt not murder". Islam calls for murdering "the infidels". Yes God gave instructions to utterly wipe out his adversaries, but it was ONLY due to peoples inherent, evil nature (you and me included), so no, God does not advocate murder, at all. If people were not evil, there would be no murdering and this will only happen when Jesus returns.

Don't bother disputing or ridiculing my and other Christian's beliefs. You hate God and I'm confident that in the end, he will grant you your choice to reside where He isn't.

As far as the rest, the Jews have a right to defend themselves and the majority of Arabs prefer Israeli control.

https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/12/15/93-of-east-jerusalem-arabs-prefer-israeli-rule-poll-shows/

Like I said, the Jews treat the Arabs WAY better than Arab countries treat Jews. Look it up yourself.

reply

Easy, everything you post is a lie.

reply

Your desperate wish since you need to lie to yourself because you're not able to deal with reality or truth. Continue to hide from reality in your self-imposed bubble.

Years later and there still is no specific link from you and there never will be.

reply

Easy. Everything. You. Post. Is. A. Lie.

Your entire ideology revolves around deceit and avoiding reality.

reply

Link?

reply

The problem is that no one fact-checks the fact-checkers.
I know pretty much all of the places where I have been accused of breaking
the terms of service it was either an AI stupid mistake, or a moderator who
was trained to push a right-wing agenda, or just an over-zealous jerk who
thinks they have the right to censor people because they are a moderator.

reply

Removing fact checking isn't about censorship. It's about fear motivating Zuckerberg's appeasement of our incoming new authoritarian leader's desire to spread propaganda and lies. That's very common in autocratic countries.

I guarantee that your liberal views will continue to be censored as self-censorship increases. You already see that with universities, news media and politicians afraid to speak out against the genocide in Gaza and NBA and movie studios bowing to China's censorship in order to maintain financial ties. And Musk has repeatedly censored liberal opinion on X while promoting extreme right viewpoints and bigotry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/10/technology/meta-mark-zuckerberg-trump.html

reply

Zuck already appeased the authoritarian leader in the White House now. He testified to this before Congress. You have no argument that does not ignore the truth.

reply

A man claiming to be a woman just because he says so is mentally ill. Which is a fact but Wokeism forbids saying so.

reply

And yet you just did....

reply

Because Wokeism is BS.

reply

Thank you for your unreconstructed opinion.

reply

Woke = being aware of and attentive to important social issues, especially those related to racial and social justice.

Anti-Wokism = White Identity Politics

reply

BLM = black identity politics, which unlike 'White Identity Politics' is an excuse to burn down neighborhoods, loot shops, murder a few civilians and embezzle millions of dollars from taxpayers. Which reminds me, congrats to George Floyd for going 4 years without drugs.

reply

White Identity Politics = Holocaust, Lynchings, Slavery, Jim Crow, Tulsa and other mass riots and mass slaughters by whites, sundown cities, genocide, ethnic-cleansing, colonialism, white-skin privilege, entitlement, book bans, discrimination, becoming rich from slavery and refusing reparations, becoming rich from land theft and refusing to financially compensate, persecution, concentration camps, exploitation in labor market, economically benefiting from mass incarceration, support for racist authoritarian leaders, economically benefiting from military industrial complex, demonize and stereotype blacks while ignoring white crime including police brutality, supporting police brutality, making jokes about a brutal racist police murder, economically benefiting from demonizing migrants who are mainly indigenous to the American continent, demonizing diversity equality and inclusion by mocking it as wokism in order to perpetuate racism white-skin privilege and exclusion.

reply

Meanwhile in Africa, modern slavery is thriving.

reply

There's much more slavery in the U.S..

reply

Whats wrong with factcheckers is that they point out the streaming torrent of lies misinformation and absolute bullshit that emanates from Trumps mouth , and by extension his followers , and they dont like it.
This is why Trump invented the term (lie) "False News"

reply

I rate this TDS post a 4/10.

And it was actually Hillary Clinton that started the "Fake News" shit lol.
https://youtu.be/J5gSrKZ-BKQ?si=h5FcBMbXlVzMsN9H

reply

4/10 , hey I'll take it, sounds like an objective rating.

hmm no date on that video, and her saying "its now clear that so called fake news can have real world consequences" implies to me that she is not inventing the term at that point.

reply

hmm no date on that video

Dec 12, 2016

Her and Obama were the original architects of Fake News.

reply

Seems you are quite correct

The (almost) complete history of 'fake news'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-42724320

(although that story has it four days earlier)


looky! i did my own research !
Although admittedly its one of those mainstream lamo sheeple sources so I dont know if it counts

reply

Naturally since it agrees with tv, it will not be denounced as MSM propaganda...

reply

The establishment only lies and deceives if/when it furthers their narrative or agenda which is about 99% of the time.

reply

Thought so lol

reply

No, he isn't because he has taken it out of context. The term itself is very old, but there is a huge difference in how it is used. Hillary was complaining about misinformation. Trump uses it to discredit legitimate news to create a false narrative. Hitler's regime did the same thing by using the term lying press 'Lügenpresse'. Authoritarians all use the same playbook.

reply

Hitler's regime was similar to the current Biden regime.

Obama made it legal for the the American people to be propagandised; Hillary capitalized on that with Fake News. That speech was a demonstration of blaming others for what she was guilty of.

reply

The Hitler regime was the original architect of fake news to discredit legitimate news. They called it Lügenpresse, 'lying press'.
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2017-10-08/ty-article/the-ominous-nazi-era-precedent-to-trumps-fake-news-attacks/0000017f-e83e-d62c-a1ff-fc7ff8d50000

reply

Today, they are called the Democratic Party.

reply

We can, as usual, thank tv's 'Independent/critical' thinking for this historical insight.

reply

If only we had his mad skillz
We're not worthy!

reply

Zuckerberg removed fact checking from Facebook after visiting Trump. Now Dictator Trump can lie and spread propaganda unimpeded.

reply

No, he's replacing them with "Community Notes" which is the same as fact checkers.

reply

How is input from China, Russia and North Korea whose goal is to destroy the U.S. from within the same as fact checkers?

reply

He’s allowing input but will continue using fact checkers (Community Notes) to rebuttal.

Are you implying that they should suppress free/open speech?

reply

You support Community Notes from Russia, China and North Korea.

Disinformation, misinformation and propaganda intended to destroy society from within are not free speech. An open exchange of ideas is free speech.

reply

Are you implying that all the fact checkers listed by the OP are from Russia, China and North Korea?

The Zuckerhead "Community Notes" will be sourced or referenced from the same fact checkers.

reply

Nope. Link to your source.

reply

"What's wrong with fact checking claims?"

Fact checkers.

reply

Because Fact-Checking websites don't actually do what they claim. And to believe and such sources as the ultimate truth is a fool's game.

reply

No one is saying that they are perfect, but very often they offer a useful corrective eg

How Elon Musk seized on baseless memo claim to fuel wave of misinformation

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g2g7qgl1eo

reply

Bullshit; they deliberate gaslight by posting false, misleading and out of context information.
And when they do post links or external sources, it's to more propaganda.

Do they insert a couple of crumbs of truth to make their entire narrative convincing? ... Absolutely.

The only time I have seen a fact checker tell the truth is when they backpedal from their previous false claim such as the two from last year.

reply

Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion.

reply

Absolutely correct. It’s only when ‘fact-checkers’ are caught lying (again) that they back-peddle and finally report the truth.

reply

when ‘fact-checkers’ are caught lying (again) that they back-peddle and finally report the truth.


Some examples being...

reply

You actually think I would waste my time proving the patently obvious… on your behalf?

🤣🤣🤣

reply

Evasion noted.

reply

Because how do we know who is fact checking the fact checkers?

reply

It may not be a perfect system, but can you suggest something better? Fact checkers seems to me at least more objective and independent than the 'community notes' (or whatever) system, lately adopted by Facebook - I think something similar is on X? -where in effect , people mark their own homework or correct things according to their own confirmation bias.

reply

They seem to be more objective? Why do you say that? Because they usually tell you what you want to hear? Yes u have a perfect system, respect the spirit of free speech and let the public decide for themselves. If “fact checkers” had any credibility they would be going after CNN and MSNBC 24/7.

reply

Yes u have a perfect system, respect the spirit of free speech and let the public decide for themselves.


None of which ensures accuracy or standards. As the cess pit of X shows. Such a perfect system there, that advertisers often do not wish to be associated with it and people are moving on in droves (Its reports show that the average number of EU monthly users fell from 111.4 million in the six months leading up to January 2024 to 106 million in the six months leading up to July.)

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/11/21/are-users-leaving-elon-musks-x-en-masse-and-where-are-they-heading

reply

The thing is however even the fact checkers often times don’t know what’s accurate so they are often spreading “misinformation “ like they claim the people they are fact checking are. It’s all an attempt to censor conservatives

reply

the fact checkers often times don’t know what’s accurate


A fact you can example? As someone else has noted, fact checkers use a range of sources.

reply

And how do we know those sources are accurate? It sounds to me that by your standard if enough sources lie about something that makes it true. While that is nonsense I will concede that is rather consistent with typical far left standards.

reply

If it really is nonsense, why raise the issue in the first place?

typical far left standards.


The relationship with truth of the far left and far right, I would suggest, is largely the same.

reply

Just pointing out that your own premise is nonsense.

Sure the right lies, but let’s be honest the left does it far far far more.

reply

that your own premise is nonsense.

My premise is, still, that fact checkers may not be a perfect system, and it doesn't look like you can suggest something better. As I said lately elsewhere the Community Notes used on X and shortly on Facebook are just people marking their own homework - and in the case of the latter something probably done for political expediency. If the system works so well on X why are people and advertisers fleeing the site?

let’s be honest the left does it [lies] far far far more.

Thank you for your opinion.

reply

Whether or not I can or cannot suggest something better is irrelevant. First of all it’s not my job to suggest something better and secondly if we can’t suggest something better than doesn’t mean the current system is acceptable.

It’s not an opinion.

reply

it’s not my job to suggest something better if we can’t suggest something better than doesn’t mean the current system is acceptable.


Evasion noted.

reply

Nope, just pointing out the facts to you.

reply

The fact that you can't think of anything better. Got it.

If you don't like or trust checkers then just don't use them. I am sure that the man down the pub will be more objective and informed.

reply

The problem is there are people out there gullible enough to think that the “fact checkers” are actually being honest. That’s why I’m concerned.

reply

Why do you think that fact checkers overall are not honest?

reply

I said there’s no way to know if they are honest.

reply

This applies to most interactions in life but we still have be reasonable.. If fact checkers as a group usually agree, use a variety of sources and correct themselves if things change, they can show good reason to be taken seriously. Doubt is very corrosive, as we can see from those on this board who, apparently, only accept their own opinions without any substantiation.

reply

Whether they agree or not is an appeal to popularity. The number of people who think something is irrelevant as to whether it’s true or not.

reply

A fair point.

However if as you say that there’s really no way to know if they are honest but if one thinks, never the less, that they are likely not, then that is the Argument from Ignorance. Otherwise we are on the same page.

The common alternative to fact checkers appears to be Facebook's and X's Community Notes. And as I said already we have all seen the cess pit that X has become, with advertisers and users leaving in droves.

reply

Then they should stop the whole “fact checking” bullshit because there’s no reason to believe that fact checkers are correct by default. The “fact checkers” could be “fact checking” a factual statement. Keep in mind these are the same people who repeatedly lied about Hunter Biden’s laptop being “Russian disinformation”. Turns out the people being “fact checked” were correct.

reply

Then they should stop the whole “fact checking” bullshit because there’s no reason to believe that fact checkers are correct by default.


No system is perfect, but as already pointed out the alternatives are not very impressive. And if you don't want to ever believe fact checkers - then don't. It's a free country.

reply

The alternative not being impressive is not a justification to implement a flawed system.

reply

A flawed system is better than nothing. There is no reason not to accept the sense of fact checkers. In my opinion the strongest words against fact checking tends to come from those who find the results of independent fact checking inconvenient, not necessarily that the results are wrong.

reply

No we should have higher standards than that. Instead of instituting something we know is wrong but is just the least wrong how about we try to think of something better?
Just be honest, you people just want to censor and discredit conservatives

reply

instituting something we know is wrong


That is different to above when you said merely that there is no way to know if [fact checkers] are honest.

we try to think of something better?


Again something I have asked for by way of suggestions from you here but never get anything back.

Just be honest, you people just want to censor and discredit conservatives


Here, unfortunately, you give your hand away and it has nothing to do with the reliability of fact checkers but more with a supposed conspiracy of the left. Thank you for playing.

reply

Actually we do know it’s wrong. “Fact checkers” stated that the Hunter Biden Laptop story was “Russian Disinformation” when it wasn’t.

I didn’t give any “hand away”. I’m just asking you to take a good look at yourself in the mirror and admit to yourself that you people only want to censor conservatives because if the truth came out you people wouldn’t win elections. The Hunter Biden Laptop Story very much would have swayed the 2020 election had it not been widespread smeared as “Russian Disinformation”

reply

You check them yourself - the fact checkers give multiple links and citations for their information

reply

I’ve seen a lot of “fact checking” that had no citations. And if I find a source that contradicts the fact checkers does that mean they are wrong? Also it seems like all the sources have to do is lie then when the fact checker lies apparently no one is supposed to question them.

reply

Obviously there is no such thing as a magic lie detector that will automatically be the final word on whether a fact is true or not , that however is not a reason to blow off all fact checkers and declare that some kind of patent fantasy - like 2022 being rigged - is actually true.

Fact checkers are the same facts as in the news but with the emphasis on as much proof and citation as can be gathered - rather than Trump just saying "its true because i said so"

"if I find a source that contradicts the fact checkers does that mean they are wrong?"

Well then its up to you to decide which is the more reliable / reputable and authentic.
It will rarely be a pure judgement call though due to the sources and citations
For the same reason you are unlikely to find two factcheckers saying opposite things because proof is required

TLDR:
Fact checkers are the same stories but with all the proof available supplied.



reply

If that’s the case then “fact checkers” are not the ultimate authority and it’s quite probable that the fact checkers are wrong and the people being fact checked are right. Just be honest “fact checking” is just a scam to censor and discredit conservatives.

reply

Its like you didnt take any of what I said in at all .

Yes there is no "ultimate authority" I agree . I said that .

That DOES NOT however mean that whatever braindead mindless shit Trump has just farted out is true.
(like for instance he said yesterday nobody knows if Denmark owns Greenland)
these things are EASILY verifiable - thats what fact checkers do.

fact checkers show you how to prove things to yourself.
Fact checkers show their working
fact checkers cite multiple sources.
its up to you to decide on a case by case basis wethewr the fact checker has provided enough information, and usually they do.

Probably the main reason that it appears to you to be " a scam to censor and discredit conservatives." is because conservatives talk shit more because they parrot the outright lies of Trump.
Its mystery to me why they do this .
Do you agree with Trump that nobody knows if Denmark rules Greenland?


reply

See there you go, you labeled what Trump said as “brain dead mindless shit“ as if I’m just supposed to accept your word because you say so. What about the “braindead mindless shit” Kamala and Brandon spew out? Rarely ever gets “fact checked”. You have not provided one shred of proof that I should believe fact checkers other than “because I say so”

Your last sentence is the most idiotic piece of drivel I have ever heard. Liberals lie far far far more than conservatives, the problem with your premise is these “fact checkers” tend to agree with the “braindead mindless shit” that democrats spew out.

reply

"You have not provided one shred of proof that I should believe fact checkers "
once again - the fact checkers oprovide the proof - they show where you can double check the information


Heres an example of Trump saying something stupid and the corresponding fact check:
https://www.factcheck.org/2025/01/trumps-blame-claims-about-wildfire-response/

Trump’s claim on Truth Social that there were “not firefighting planes” is inaccurate.

Aircraft used to drop water or flame retardant on the fires were only temporarily grounded the night of Jan. 7, according to the Los Angeles Times, which cited statements made by city and fire officials.


Here it shows where the information came from , if you want to pursue it further you know you can take it up with the city and fire officials, who are probably named in the Los Angeles Times article.



The "Trump falsely claimed that the Biden administration “stole” money for hurricane recovery and spent it on housing for people in the U.S. illegally" is an even more cut 'n dried one , its just plain untrue and the fact checker provides link to
https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/house-passes-critical-disaster-relief-americans
to show the funds available

reply

"Liberals lie far far far more"

You have got to be joking . Name one liberal politician who is up all night on Twitter letting his infant brain fart out misinformation at the rate that Trump does

If you can think of a particular liberal them I'm sure if you google his name along with "fact checker" you'll find some analysis of his statements

reply

First provide evidence that Trump is up all night “letting his infant brain fart out misinformation”?

Also pretty much the entire left wing spewed out disinformation the entire campaign saying Trump was a “threat to democracy “ a “fascist” and the next Hitler which directly resulted in 7-13 and 9-15. The lefts lies (including Brandon and Kamala) almost got Trump assassinated.

reply

I just fact checked you, Trump did not say that. See how easy that was?

reply

Well done you , did you find out what he *did* say ? what I was referring to ?
because it was pretty damn similar and meant the same thing .

reply

Yep. You are spreading disinformation, you’ve been fact checkered. You’re going to have to accept it.

reply