Share this comment
I think that the problem with fact-checkers is that, in the past, accurate information and sincere questioning have been removed and written-off as the work of conspiracy theorists (tabletmag.com/sections/… and commonplace.org/2025/01… are articles I've read recently detailing some issues - the second is explicitly a response to Facebook…
I think that the problem with fact-checkers is that, in the past, accurate information and sincere questioning have been removed and written-off as the work of conspiracy theorists (https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/invasion-fact-checkers and https://commonplace.org/2025/01/17/good-riddance-facebook-fact-checkers/ are articles I've read recently detailing some issues - the second is explicitly a response to Facebook's policy change). Part of the advantage of community-sourced corrections is that, although they may take longer, people tend to receive them more openly since there's not as much of a "Ministry of Truth" vibe, plus there's less risk of partisanship since anyone can contribute.
On the second development, I certainly don't want to see more hate speech online, but I think that the First Amendment approach isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd like to see people discuss issues openly on the internet, and the cost of that is that some people will unfortunately say gross filth. At the end of the day, words are just words--how we respond to them is up to us. I think that part of the reason why people post inflammatory things online is for attention, so censoring them only confirms their perception of their own language as powerful and intimidating. That's just my two cents, though!
"I think that the problem with fact-checkers is that, in the past, accurate information and sincere questioning have been removed and written-off as the work of conspiracy theorists"
Yes, this is true. And it's a legitimate concern. But all we're really saying here is:
"The problem with fact checkers is that they aren't perfect."
Fact checkers, by and large, get things right. And while they can and should improve, no system of fact checking, very much including community notes, can be perfect. So I'm just saying the solution to that is to work harder to improve those systems and make them more transparent, not abandon the entire notion of truth and accuracy.
As for people who post inflammatory things, yes, I think you're right, they do it for attention. The problem is, they GET attention! So they're incentivised to post ever more inflammatory, dishonest things in the hopes of more attention. This inevitable trend is precisely why Twitter has become such a cesspool of misinformation and hate.
Again, we need to decide whether we want that to be the norm on our means of communication. Just as we've decided that we don't want child porn and beheadings on social media.
I'm very much in the "no" camp for both.
People tell you who they are with what they say. That can be good to know.
I'm actually not convinced by this line of argument. Most people are smart enough to hide their deepest darkest thoughts. In fact, online, many people are just saying what they think is most popular/profitable/likely to annoy the people on the other side.
I tend to think people more accurately tell you who they are with what they DO.
But anyway, a lot of people's memories are goldfish short. Knowing "who someone is" doesn't seem to take for more than a few months.
So we should infantilize adults? I would agree but you used the words, “who decides?” There are articles that you publish here that would get you thrown off of Medium where people can call conservatives, racist, sexist, fascist, pieces of shit and it’s just fine. When someone says, “a transwoman is a woman, PERIOD!”, disagree and it is hate speech that causes trans people to die. When hate is “I don’t like that, or you for saying it” it becomes a matter of which way the deciders tilt.
Yes, it is not a good thing when people believe fabulous bullshit, but anyone who thinks that only one side of the political spectrum is full of crap, they are unfit to be deciders. Algorithms seem weak at discerning obvious satire, or they don’t like it because satire and ridicule are effective and it’s making the wrong people look like idiots.
"So we should infantilize adults?"
Yes! Some adults think and behave like infants! Again, we could both reel off example after example of this. Most people are too busy or lack the expertise to understand the avalanche of issues they face. And they need help, we ALL need help, differentiating facts from lies.
Just choosing our preferred narrative based on vibes or partisanship is not sustainable.
Yes, I'm painfully aware that there are places where I can't say certain things. I'm very annoyed about it. But that isn't even about fact checking. It's about a slavish, cult-like adherence to a particular orthodoxy. That's why I mentioned Galileo being threatened with torture for saying the Earth revolves around the Sun.
There is such a thing as a fact. And the one thing they all have in common is that they are supported by evidence. Galileo was right about the Earth revolving around the sun. And we know that because he could prove it. We should all want as many provable facts as possible in our discourse. Even if they are uncomfortable for some people.
Of course, some things, in fact, many things, don't fall into this category. We could have different experiences of racism, say, or sexism, or different personal political priorities. I support exactly zero restriction on the expression of these differences. But when people are deliberately distorting facts, like, for example, claiming that trans women are women or even female, proper fact-checking makes talking about these issues EAISER!
Facts are not inherently ideological. It is possible (and it would be beneficial) to take the flawed systems we have now and make them better and more transparent. That's all I'm saying.
I agree, but we live in a world where people select data that supports their views and call their opinion about it facts. Made worse because their “data” is a biased “study”. I would love unbiased honest fact checking, history doesn’t support that happening. Propaganda in the form of falsehood has been presented as truth forever.
"I agree, but we live in a world where people select data that supports their views and call their opinion about it facts"
Exactly! And this is a serious problem. Because it leaves us with a lot of people who are badly misinformed about the world they live in and therefore can't make rational, informed decision.
To be exceptionally clear, I'm not saying that rational informed decisions will always jibe with my own. It's perfectly possible to look at the same facts and come to different conclusions or have different priorities. This is the whole point of living in a pluralistic society.
My point is that we are looking at different "facts" and therefore coming to *irreconcilable* conclusions. And this is unsustainable. Just saying this is unfixable is pure defeatism.
Yes, and facebook and most of media didn't held Trump and conservatives to a standard of fact, that they never attempted to apply to the left.
For instance, when the presidential debates were fact checked, Trump was called out on many lies, and Biden and Harris (separate debates, yes) were called out on a token few, and a few more that were defended by the fact checkers as an understandable simplification. Image if they had vouched for Trump that way! Laughable idea. All three debaters lied almost constantly, even if Trump lied the most. This uneven treatment for different people within the same event was typically far more uneven for all other events.
"Literal nazi", anyone? Beyond the debates, frequent and bold claims by all kinds of celebrity and politicians that Trump is a literal nazi were never fact-checked. This happened many times, every single day. For some people, there never was fact checking, so nothing is lost now. There is no wonder why this version of fact-checking is rejected as an ideologically-captured hoax. "Literal nazi" to me means, "fact-check standards for thee, but not for me".
Here is a simple idea: Treat everyone to the same standard, and maybe someone will trust the process. No reason to trust? Then other details just don't matter.
Oh, definitely! As it pertains to online speech: if people are allowed to speak openly, even in objectionable ways, 1) their thoughts are in the open (so people will know what they believe and thus, as you point out, who exactly they are) and 2) others can confront them directly about prejudiced or incorrect statements.