HILARIOUS: Facebook Admits In Court: “Our Fact-Checks Are Just Opinion”

Go back with me in time to 2019.

We had amassed a community of 1.5 million Followers on Facebook, starting with ZERO in 2015.

And we were growing at the rate of about 100,000 per month.

Why?

Because we posted the news the MSM refused to cover.

Because we published truth!

And people are attracted to truth.

They know it when they see it.

So did Facebook, but they HATED truth.

Wanted it banned, kept in the shadows.

So they started attacking, banning and deleting anyone who posted the truth.

We were enemy #1.

Want to see the last meme that did us in?

I’ll never forget it, it was this one:

That’s right folks, we posted this and Facebook Fact-Checked it!

They “Fact Checked” a meme!

Hilarious right?

That was the last “Fact Check” we ever received.

It’s unclear if that was the exact reason we were deleted or if someone inside Fakebook just went rogue or what exactly happened, but with no due process of any kind and no right to appeal a few days later we were simply deleted.

POOF!

Gone, as if we never existed.

Couldn’t even log in anymore!

Now flash forward from 2019 to 2023 and Fakebook is now admitting in Court that their “Fact Checks” are pure bull💩.

Of course we knew that all along, but now they’ve admitted it!

No 💩! Facebook Admits in Court That 'Fact Checks' Are Just Opinion https://t.co/8JvbYN09Mb

— Dr David Cartland BMedSci MBChB MRCGP (2014) (@CartlandDavid) June 20, 2023

From Breitbart, here’s more:

Despite presenting itself to the public as the arbiter of truth and guarantor of factually-accurate information, guarding users against “fake news” and “misinformation,” Facebook has admitted in court that its “fact checks” of information — frequently aimed at conservatives — are nothing more than statements of opinion.

The bombshell emerged from Facebook’s court battle with John Stossel, who is suing the company for defamation over its decision to add “fact check” labels to the libertarian pundit’s videos about climate change.

From page two of Facebook’s court filing (emphasis ours):

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 defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion. And even if Stossel could attribute Climate Feedback’s separate webpages to Meta, the challenged statements on those pages are likewise neither false nor defamatory. Any of these failures would doom Stossel’s complaint, but the combination makes any amendment futile.

Facebook, now calling itself “Meta,” asserts that Stossel needs to “attribute Climate Feedback’s separate webpages to Meta” because of the tech company’s outsourcing of censorship to third-party fact checkers, made up of liberal media organizations and nonprofits. Facebook uses this system to distance itself from responsibility from any fact-checks, by arguing that the decisions are made by third-parties rather than the company itself.

So, will this stop them from “Fact Checking”?

Of course not.

Despite FB admitting in court that "Fact" Checks are opinions only, they will continue to ban you because of these "Fact" Checks! pic.twitter.com/xRtnRv26J9

— GanGarf DeBalde (@_GanGarf) July 2, 2023