Fact-checking has emerged as one of the most prominent policy tools to combat the spread of misinformation, but critics have argued that it infringes upon freedom of expression and that it has no meaningful impact on the circulation of misinformation. This column provides evidence from the field that fact-checking significantly reduces engagement with posts on Facebook rated as false and also decreases users' subsequent activity. The findings suggest that the impact of fact-checking primarily results not from Facebook’s actions to hide or demote content, but rather from users’ behavioural responses, challenging the idea that it suppresses free speech.
what follows from this statement is that you should be skeptical of everything you read or hear
and yes, you should. does that take more work? yes, it does. especially under a technochristofascist authoritarian government who tells you that anyone considered “expert in their field” is not to be trusted since they advocate for vaccines while we [the government in charge of running the country], for some reason…don’t.
does everything about this fucking suck? also yes, it does. what else do we have? between being skeptical of fact-checkers and eliminating fact-checkers (the direction the party is pushing you towards), sorry, i choose fact-check the fact-checkers
Removed by mod
you’re talking about critical thinking, which is also under vicious attack by the GOP, but yes, i agree: when the fact-checkers belong to the very people who are spreading not-facts, then what do you have?
does this mean we should dismiss fact-checking as a thing people should do? because–make no mistake-- the end goal here is for you to have the mindset that “whatever dear leader says is absolute truth, and anything else is fake news”
you can literally see this in trump supporters.