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.
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"
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.,,
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.
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 share
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.
"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..."
"Rejecting unsubstantiated claims, such as psychological misconceptions and pseudoscience, is associated with being more inclined and better able to think critically."
"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."
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.
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.
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 share
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.
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)
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.
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..
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.
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…
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?
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?
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.
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 share
..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 share
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
😴
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 share
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.
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
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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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
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.
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
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.