Facebook Admits In Court It’s "Fact Checks" Are Not Factual, They’re "Protected Opinions".

Video Transcript:

Alright, everybody, really interesting article off zero heads today, and this won't be news to anybody with any sense of intelligence. But Facebook court filings admit that their fact checks are just a matter of protected opinion. Right? And I made that connection last year to show you just how simple it is to understand with factcheck.org. And I have showed you that the connections between the Annenberg Foundation and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are direct. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation give money to the Annenberg Foundation, which runs factcheck.org, which debunks conspiracy theories, quote unquote, about Bill Gates. Right? So the entire thing is just one big incestuous pit. They're not to be trusted. Anyone with an IQ over 80 already knows that. It says surprisingly little attention is being paid to a bombshell admission made by the attorneys representing the corporation formally known as Facebook Inc, which is now transitioned into Meta Platforms Inc. In a court filing responding to a lawsuit filed by John Stossel claiming that he was defamed by a quote fact check, Facebook used a label of video by him as misleading. Meta's attorneys assert that the fact check was an opinion, not an actual check of facts and declaration of facts. Under libel law, opinions are protected from liability for libel. Anthony Watts of Watts up with that explains. Opinions are not subject to defamation claims, while false assertions of fact can be subject to defamation. The quote in Facebook's complaint is, the labels themselves are neither false nor to family to the contrary. They constitute protected opinion. Beyond this threshold, Section 230 problem, the complaint also fails to state a claim for defamation. For one, Stossel fails to plead facts establishing that Meta acted with actual malice, which, as a public figure, he must. For another, Stossel's claims focus on the fact check articles written by climate feedback, not the labels affixed through the Facebook platform. The labels themselves are neither false nor to family to the contrary. They constitute protected opinion. And even if Stossel could contribute climate feedback separate web pages to Meta, the challenge statements on those pages are likewise neither false nor to family to any of these failures would doom Stossel's complaint, but the combination makes any amendment futile. So it says, Meta's attorneys come from the white shoe law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door with over a thousand attorneys and more than a billion dollars a year in revenue. They obviously checked out the implications of the matter for Section 230 issues, the legal protection Facebook Meta have from liability for what is posted on their site. But at a minimum, this is a public relations disaster revealing that their quote, fact checks are not factual at all and should be labeled as quote, our opinion or some such language avoiding the word fact. As an amateur, it seems to me that a Facebook inserts its opinions into post or blocks them because of its opinion, then that does make it a publisher with legal responsibility for what appears on its website. Technically speaking, Facebook farms out its fact checking to outside organizations, usually left wing groups. In the case of Stossel's video that was defamed, the outside website called climate feedback, which is also named a defendant in the lawsuit, what summarizes well the PR implications. Such fact checks are now shown to be simply an agenda to suppress free speech. G, I think, in the open discussion of science by disguising liberal media activism as something supposedly factual, noble, neutral, trustworthy, and based on science. In light of Facebook's admission, it's time for the Washington Post to offer a correction to its piece by Ethan Porter and Thomas J. Woods published less than a month ago titled, Fact Check's Actually Work, even on Facebook, but not enough people see them. So-called fact checking as a fraud used to cover up the censorship of opinions that differ from those of the powerful Silicon Valley oligarchy. And now we have proof attested to in a court filing by one of the richest companies in the world represented by some of the most elite lawyers in the world. So pretty interesting guys, I would share this around because in the title it says, and it's true, right? Their fact checks are just a matter of opinion. They're not factual statements. So anytime you have a family member, a friend, or some other person with a low IQ that you know sending you a fact check dot org, you know, or Facebook fact check article, just tell them, no, it's not a fact, it's an opinion. And here's proof, right? Here's them admitting it in court. Again, this isn't news to anyone who's intelligent, but pretty interesting and damning to read nonetheless.