Re: Fact checkers need fact checkers
OK, so your sources are a couple of nypost articles, one of which is written by a party to the lawsuit, and the other is reporting on the other?
You'll note that those articles didn't include Facebook's filing? Here's an article that does: https://www.opindia.com/2021/12/facebook-accepts-that-its-third-party-fact-checks-are-nothing-but-protected-opinions-reports/
The snippet from their filing is
> 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
They're not saying "oh it's just an opinion", or even "it's just an expression of left-wing opinion".
They're saying that the label that Stossel is objecting to is applied as a result of the fact-checker's assessment. He's suing entirely the wrong party.
They're not using a defence that the label is true, because they're not the party that made the assessment (that was Climate Feedback), and therefore need to show that they're communicating an opinion onwards. It's for Climate Feedback to make the defense that what they said was true.
Defamation law is complex and confusing (it's even worse here in the UK), what the nypost is spreading is basically a convenient sounding sound-bite.
This reads like a problem with a specific fact checker tbh
> Google is your friend. However, I used Duck Duck Go.
Thanks, but you made the claim so it was on you to provide evidence for it.
I'm not sure you've managed