Facebook claims in a court filing that their "fact checkers" only state "protected conclusions" and not facts.
Meta Platforms, formerly known as Facebook, has admitted in court that its fact checks are simply "protected conclusions."
The legal complaint was filed in response to a lawsuit filed by libertarian expert John Stossel, who claimed that one of the "fact checks" posted on a Facebook video slandered him and was misleading.
In response, Facebook stated that the so-called "fact check" was actually an "opinion" and not an actual fact check and statement of facts. Opinions are protected from defamation charges by exempting the natural or legal person who made the statements from liability. On the other hand, statements marked as facts force an individual or a legal entity to file a libel suit.
Whatever decision the court makes, filing documents and a lawsuit is a disaster for Meta Platforms PR people. The statement in court that the so-called "fact checks" are nothing but "protected opinions" puts Facebook in a precarious position.
If the court does not agree with the claim of Meta Platforms' lawyers, the company is liable for defamation and personal insult. On the other hand, if the court accepts their claim, it means that Meta Platforms has been misleading users for a long time, claiming that fact checks were actual fact checks, and not someone's opinion.
Meta Platforms doesn't actually perform the tasks it calls fact checking. The company hires third-party left-wing supporters ostensibly to verify the facts. For anyone who does not hold views that coincide with left-wing liberals, it may seem obvious for a while that the social network has its own agenda.
The court statement that the so-called "fact checks" are just opinions proves that Meta Platforms does not check the facts at all.