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

What's wrong with fact checking claims?

posted 10 days ago by filmflaneur (2167)
218 replies | jump to latest

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.

[–] CraigC (8481) 9 days ago

The problem with "fact checkers" is that they aren't. They're propagandists. At best biased, at worst they are completely full of shit and the whole thing was created by people trying to control the narrative.

[–] filmflaneur (2167) 8 days ago

At best biased, at worst they are completely full of shit

Examples of this? It wouldn't be that a lot of times that they just don't confirm your own biases, would it?

[–] CraigC (8481) 8 days ago

Unlike you, I know the fucking difference.

CNN/MSNBC have LONG been heavily biased. Now they're purely propaganda. If it's their "fact checkers", it goes without saying. It's self-imposed confirmation of their own bullshit. Contrived credibility. It's a joke that only idiots like you fall for.

[–] filmflaneur (2167) 8 days ago

No examples then...

CNN/MSNBC have LONG been heavily biased. Now they're purely propaganda. If it's their "fact checkers", it goes without saying.

It goes without substantiation too, it would seem...

[–] CraigC (8481) 7 days ago

The truth to a liberal is like water off a duck's back.

[–] filmflaneur (2167) 7 days ago

Probably too long for a bumper sticker, but good try.

[–] tvfan (13745) 8 days ago

^^^ 100% This. Well put.

[–] brux (14802) 8 days ago

Nothing is wrong with fact-checking.
What is wrong for companies with fact-checking is that it is complicated, and they have to pay for it.
One problem is that the people who do the tax cuts are not vetted or reviewed for competence.
Moderation ends up being censorship for whatever the corporations do not like - and most of them are becoming more and more Right-wing every year.
Problem is that people are stupid to believe them because all the MAGA/Republicans/Right-wing really care about is getting those tax cuts through and cutting off any responsibility to pay for anything in our country but their own fantasies.
F'em.

[–] CarterBlunt (1412) 8 days ago

You're supposed to fact check claims, not rely on propagandists calling themselves "fact checkers" to do it for you.

[–] filmflaneur (2167) 8 days ago

propagandists calling themselves "fact checkers"

As has been noted before this is a claim typical of those who find checked information is often inconvenient to their world view and that of right wing echo chambers. Fact checkers use a range of sources and when they are checked against each other, usually agree. I'm sure some will see this as a conspiracy of propagandists. Others will see this as an indication of objectivity,

[–] WandererFromYs (2347) 8 days ago

After adjusting ... systematic discrepancies, we found only one case out of 749 matching claims with conflicting verdict ratings."

Yeah right. I’ll give you 2 off the top of my head. Hunter Bidens laptop is is Russian disinformation, and Covid was not man made in a lab. They all agreed on both of those things.

The problem with fact checkers on social media is that it just a way to control the narrative. They are used as an authority on the truth, and they do it to shut down conversations without any debate.

Just imagine if moviechat used fact checkers and added a community note claiming your first post was misinformation. No one would be need to reply and try and refute your points because there is a note right there saying that it’s bullshit, and you don’t get to debate that, because they are the authority on the matter. That isn’t how open dialogue should work.

[–] filmflaneur (2167) 8 days ago

They all agreed on both of those things.

Did you check them all?

Just imagine if moviechat ... added a community note claiming your first post was misinformation

Just imagine if Facebook started using this method and X already did... oh, yeah, sorry......

The bottom line is: while one can accept faults, fact checking is better than people marking their own homework.

[–] BeaSouth (3495) 8 days ago

This link to Zuckerberg’s exhaustive interview explains the Biden Administration’s censorship imposed on Facebook.
https://youtu.be/7k1ehaE0bdU?si=pprsS_RG0Er8q4du

It was “old school” PRC-style government control of political speech with which the administration disagreed. It involved severe threats, intimidation, and use of the American law enforcement and intelligence agencies. This government program was vastly beyond “fact checking” (which even Zuckerberg intends to continue via a community notes system). He talks about the problems with the third party fact checking organizations starting at about 26:00.

Even if you watch only the first 20-30 minutes, I hope you will listen to what he describes because your OP is minimizing the truth about what was really going on.

[–] filmflaneur (2167) 7 days ago

Thank you for the link.

The truth is more that it is political expediency (although Zuckerberg has never been keen on content moderation). It likely reflects a partisan effort to align Meta with President-elect Trump, who has repeatedly criticized the company for alleged anti-conservative bias. As another indicator of this, Meta has also appointed Ultimate Fighting Championship CEO Dana White, a Trump ally, to the company's board of directors. The move came days after they named former Republican lobbyist Joel Kaplan as its new chief global affairs officer. Zuckerberg can see which way the political wind in blowing for now.

Trump himself appears to believe he influenced the policy change. When asked at a press conference at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday whether Meta's new content moderation policy came in response to his previous criticism of the company, Trump said, "Probably."

Zuckerberg admits in his video that "It means we're going to catch less bad stuff" while the co-chair of the independent body that reviews Facebook and Instagram has said she is "very concerned" about sweeping changes to what content is allowed on the platforms and how its moderated.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjwlwlqpwx7o

[–] BeaSouth (3495) 2 days ago

I agree with your opinions here and think you’re dead-on correct. I experienced some healthy cynicism during Zuckerberg’s interview. I don’t view him as some courageous change agent in making these revisions to Facebook. He’s changing course on DEI initiatives and fact checking policy because the political landscape changed from the end of Biden to the start of Trump II. He’s also trying to shift blame to the outgoing Biden administration for the prior Facebook policies he lacked the courage and conviction to address before Trump’s reelection.

I will give him some accolades however for being independent-minded and willing to be scrutinized in an hours’ long interview by Rogan. He was clearly well prepared and willing to express his new thought and philosophy like we would expect of a successful, self-respecting man who had founded a major business that billions of people use on a daily basis. But I accept that he seized the moment of the impending re-inauguration of Trump, recognizing it reduced the risk and increased the payoff of such Facebook changes.

[–] Patman111196 (1840) 8 days ago

It's that people on both sides nowadays want to be told what they want to hear. Regardless of how accurate fact checking is, people prefer to stick to their own narrative than being proven wrong. Considering Trump is quite a narcissist, he's the perfect leader for that kind of thing.

[–] filmflaneur (2167) 7 days ago

Exactly this.

[–] maixiu (2491) 7 days ago

You finally admit that you're a hopeless partisan who relies on firmware updates from Ruling class.

[–] filmflaneur (2167) 7 days ago

Gaslighting. That, rudeness and trolling appears to be all you people have of late.

[–] tvfan (13745) 7 days ago

But he's correct, you implied that you're partisan. Especially since none of your listed fact checkers are right leaning.

[–] filmflaneur (2167) 7 days ago

you implied that you're partisan.

On this board we are all partisan, but that does not mean I reject fact checking, or authoritative sources outright all the time just because they are inconvenient, and only ever accept my own opinions. Who do I know who does that?

none of your listed fact checkers are right leaning.

If they are objective, one would not find this surprising, In fact some fact checkers have been, at various times, condemned by both left and right, - which would suggest they get things more or less correct. And in fact when I did lately, I chose fact checking examples at random.

[–] tvfan (13745) 7 days ago

But none of your fact checkers are right leaning, as a matter of fact, I have not seen a single right leaning fact checker from anyone on this forum. Therefore, anyone that relies on fact checkers is partisan.

[–] filmflaneur (2167) 7 days ago

I have not seen a single right leaning fact checker from anyone on this forum.

That does not mean that those offered are necessarily left wing. You seem here to be complaining that checkers are not biased in the way you want . Not a good look.

Btw: whether a fact-checking site is in a network like the International Fact-Checking Network can help to establish the reliability of a fact-checking organization.

Also, you famously do not consult other sources but use your own vaunted intelligence as a source for all truths. So why do checkers bother you at all? And if you don't use them then, er, how do you know they are left wing?

[–] SemiAnimus (2778) 7 days ago

"On this board we are all partisan..."

This is one of the dumbest things you've said here. I've got more faith in you than that, Reading and all. Do better.

[–] filmflaneur (2167) 7 days ago

Do you really think contributors to a politics board are likely to be, or all are, objective and neutral? I have exchanged views with quite a few here and read quite a few more, and this never seems the case. The overwhelming tenor of posters here is alt-Right, who inevitably pile on (or troll) the minority with alternate views,

[–] SemiAnimus (2778) 7 days ago

All?

You can play these linguistic games on the forums but I'm not prithee. You're wrong.

"I have exchanged views with quite a few here..."

That's essentially my problem with you here. You haven't. Your assertions are few and far between and your conversation here primarily consists of attempted negations of the claims of others.

I'll be honest that I'm glad you're here. I'd like to see more of your thoughts rather than refutation. Does that make sense?

[–] filmflaneur (2167) 7 days ago

All?

Ok, I will admit that, occasionally a more reasonable voice appears. But inevitably they don't stay. That's because this is an arena, not a petting zoo.

"I have exchanged views with quite a few here..."
That's essentially my problem with you here. You haven't

After 2,000 odd messages I think I would have been in chat with a good cross section.

Your assertions are few and far between

Given it is very often my assertions that many of my interlocutors contest (like you, here) this idea is somewhat ironic,

and your conversation here primarily consists of attempted negations of the claims of others.

Even if true, this is irrelevant to the numbers I have spoken to. I think I ought to know better to whom I have spoken and the various threads I have read/followed.

I'll be honest that I'm glad you're here.

Thank you.

I'd like to see more of your thoughts rather than refutation

Then check out my posts; you will find that thought and research goes in to them when I have a respondent who returns the favour or demands the answers. But such is the partisan make up of this board, that refutations are inevitable.

[–] SemiAnimus (2778) 7 days ago

I'm not going to respond to you point by point. Incidentally, that relates to my point.

You could have typed a few sentences and expressed your opinion, but instead you related it by splitting what I said into obtuse citations. Your officious approach detracts from any point you were trying to make.

[–] filmflaneur (2167) 7 days ago

I'm not going to respond to you point by point

Just as well,

You could have typed a few sentences and expressed your opinion

Which I did, it is just I like to be specific to that which I am replying. It is good practice.

into obtuse citations

Then the obtuseness is only yours, my friend.

Your officious approach detracts from any point you were trying to make.

I think it was clear enough. Bottom line: the politics board is, no surprise, overwhelmingly partisan and I have read and contributed enough to see that for myself. Glad to help.

[–] SemiAnimus (2778) 7 days ago

It seems that the concept has eluded you again. I, and presumably many here, aren't interested in your presentation and are more entertained by the content of your own thoughts that you present, or don't. Chopping up my words to quip point by point doesn't elevate your content, or any positive affirmation if you prefer.

[–] filmflaneur (2167) 5 days ago

Thank you for not disputing my principal point any more. I would write more but I have to be off, replying to all those who taking a one sided view on a range of topics.

[–] SemiAnimus (2778) 5 days ago

That "everyone here is partisan?" You're still wrong there, and there isn't more to say about it. Unless you have "proof," that is. Your source mining and fallacy labels wont help you here.

Incidentally, you dropped the obnoxious block quotes. Regardless if it's a concession of a "point," thanks for that.

[–] filmflaneur (2167) 5 days ago

"everyone here is partisan?" You're still wrong there,

You didn't read several messages back when I said "I will admit that, occasionally a more reasonable voice appears." I guess then?

Unless you have "proof," that is. Your source mining and fallacy labels wont help you here.

Exactly why, also earlier, I said I am going by my personal experience of exchanges here with others, and reading many threads. Please try and actually read my replies, it will stop embarrassing yourself. And, are you not, er, making a partisan point in this very thread, by insisting the politics board is not so partisan? Read down the head page of the politics board. How many posts are without assumptions and opinions? I think mine, here is one of the very few.

you dropped the obnoxious block quotes.

LOL and yes, I can see how house style must be annoying for you.

[–] SemiAnimus (2778) 5 days ago

"You didn't read several messages back when I said "I will admit that, occasionally a more reasonable voice appears." I guess then?"

You did say that, followed by...

"But inevitably they don't stay."

Making any circumvention you attempted there redundant. You've contributed nothing towards demonstrating that "everyone here is partisan" with this exchange.

Here as with your failure to comprehend a distinction between is and is not in one of our previous encounters, I suggest you work on your precision of language before condescending to suggest one should reread your content.

[–] Melton (5034) 4 days ago

‘Everyone is partisan’ is a real mask-off moment for Flimflam, he’s admitting he’s in a cult, despite his pretence of being an objective Socratic thinker.

(Not that the mask wasn’t barely clinging to his face anyway but he wasn’t aware of that)

[–] filmflaneur (2167) 4 days ago

‘Everyone is partisan’ is a real mask-off moment

Didn't read where I said that I will admit that, occasionally, a more reasonable voice appears. But inevitably they don't stay then huh?

Of course, as one of the more moderate and less partisan posters here you are, er, the exception to the rule LOL

[–] Melton (5034) 2 days ago

Keep digging…

[–] filmflaneur (2167) 2 days ago

Thank you all your notably non-partisan comments down the last weeks and months, QED.

[–] Melton (5034) 2 days ago

You’re welcome, now learn from my example and stop being a partisan prick.

And if you don’t want to look like a total dildo then learn what QED means before using it, you pretentious tit 🤦🏻‍♂️

[–] filmflaneur (2167) a day ago

Oh dear.

QED = that which was to be demonstrated.

[–] Melton (5034) a day ago

Oh dear indeed, you finally looked up the meaning of QED but still misuse it in context 🤦🏻‍♂️

[–] filmflaneur (2167) a day ago

You are one of the most partisan posters on this board, notably with the homophobics. Hence the QED.

[–] Melton (5034) a day ago

No I’m not, hence you’re misusing QED.

Do the ground work before eagerly farting out your Latin phrases.

[–] filmflaneur (2167) a day ago

No I’m not

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/677eea058891c3505a317cce/Whats-wrong-with-fact-checking-claims?reply=67830128e076fc74eec21365

If I called you a liar, that would be 'just a description and not an insult' ... right?

[–] Melton (5034) a day ago

Sharting up a meaningless link is exactly the kind of vapid poseur move that we’re talking about, as is your groundless ‘gotcha’.

This is going from bad to worse for you 🤦🏻‍♂️

[–] filmflaneur (2167) a day ago

Thank you for playing.

[–] Melton (5034) a day ago

Thank you for cementing your reputation as a deceitful gobshite with no substance.

[–] filmflaneur (2167) 4 days ago

ou did say that, followed by...

"But inevitably they don't stay."

Making any circumvention you attempted there redundant.

As far as I can ascertain, it is true, Most moderate voices do not hang around as they tend to get howled down or ignored.

I really don't see why making reasonable points about the politics board, based on my experience, exercises you so much. It really is not controversial to say that people are attracted to politics because that have political views. Once again; read down the head page of the politics board. How many posts are there without explicit or implied assumptions and opinions?

Here as with your failure to comprehend a distinction between is and is not in one of our previous encounters, I suggest you work on your precision of language before condescending to suggest one should reread your content.

You are attempting to make out a contradiction where there is none, moreover the patronising tone is clear.

You are still showing your partisanship. So unless you have any sensible observations to add about the truisms about this characteristically combative board to add, that is all from me here,

[–] Rorikon (18111) 7 days ago

The funny thing about disbelievers is that they'll hate the fact checking site when it goes against their confirmation biases util it doesn't then they link it as proof. You can't reason with cult mindsets.

[–] filmflaneur (2167) 5 days ago

Indeed.

[–] Bucky (342) 6 days ago

Stephen Glass was once a fact checker.

Hi antics and how he beat them to publish a bunch of false articles are portrayed in Shattered Glass.