Meta, and facts

Jan 11, 2025
Jan 11, 2025
8

Editor,

“Meta eliminates fact-checking” read the headlines on the Jan. 8 edition of the Daily Journal.

(8) comments

edkahl Jan 12, 2025 2:56pm

The issue is that most fact checkers have a political bias.

Not So Common Jan 11, 2025 9:45am

Kat, you’re obviously the typical blind, head in the sand liberal ostrich. Facebook, Google, etc have all been hiding the truth or opinions that go against the liberal narrative and the gastapo line of thinking. This has been going on for 6+ years, perhaps you should open your mind rather than living in the same hole as Jorg, irRELevant, etc….

MichKosk Jan 11, 2025 8:36am

Why is it Kat that you want to outsource your brain to others to make decisions about what you are allowed to see and read? I certainly don't expect that everything anyone posts on the internet is true, I'm perfectly capable of discerning questionable information from reputable facts.

Regardless did you listen to Zuckerberg on Joe Rogan yesterday? It was members of the BIDEN administration who called his employees angrily demanding they take down TRUE INFORMATION that might make their precious Covid vaccine look not so great.

Remember your history: those who want to censor speech are never the good guys.

Rel Jan 11, 2025 12:45pm

“Those who want to censor speech are never the good guys.” Which explains all we need to know why Trump spent hundreds of millions to suppress his various legal trials even when he knew he was getting a mere slap on the wrist for his 34 felonies. Also, explains why so many red states feel the need to prohibit certain books in high schools.

MichKosk Jan 11, 2025 4:09pm

What books are you talking about Rel? Curating a school library for age appropriateness and literary value is not censorship. 2 years ago the BIS library had a book called "This Book is Gay". It had extremely graphic descriptions of sex acts, and encouraged gay kids to use hook-up apps to meet others. When I showed the principal at the time what was in this book, she agreed it was not appropriate for 11-14 year olds, and took it out of the library. Was that the same as a social media platform shutting down true speech on behalf of the government?

Can't respond to your red herring about Trump's defense in his trials, that has nothing to do with free speech and the first amendment, which is the subject we are discussing here.

Not So Common Jan 11, 2025 8:39pm

IrRELevant- nice to see you have returned from your hole and have seen your shadow. Your line of thinking is abhorrent. Banning pornography for small children is good! why do you think that exposing children to pornography is a good thing? Please answer the question.. Keeping children safe from people like you and your type of thinking is necessary . You somehow feel that children should be exposed to pornography, maybe even pedophilia and probably other types of deviant behavior. You call it free speech, and when conservatives have different morally based opinions and want to protect children that Trump is the problem. And when Trump defends himself from liberal hate filled, drummed up lawsuits that somehow Trunp is the again the problem. I always thought that JORG was the worst of the worst, but you have moved to thefront of the line.

Ray Fowler Jan 12, 2025 1:02pm

Good Sunday to you, Not So Common

I’m certain we agree with MichKosk’s comments that age-inappropriate reading materials should be restricted. That does not mean they’re banned or that writers are prohibited from expressing their ideas… however, it does mean distribution of those materials may be limited.

You and I agree on other issues. Where we don’t agree is the inclusion of ad hominem in these pages. Name calling and insults do not make for a productive exchange of ideas. Parts of your rebuttal to Rel were IMO unnecessary.

You and I have been targeted by ad hominem. As recently as last week, I was on the receiving end of some ad hominem by the author of an LTE… even so, I chose not to repay the author in kind. In my view, ad hominem says more about the person using it than it does about the person it targets. I’m not trying to sound self-righteous. True enough… I have faults like everyone else, but remarks purposely submitted to impugn the character of another DJ reader are unwarranted.

I know Rel, and I respect him… even though we seldom agree on issues. While we have frequently exchanged differing opinions in the comments section, those exchanges have not included name calling or insults. You may recall a story in the news last week re: Barack Obama and Donald Trump sharing a joke. They were conversing and smiling with cameras all around. It would be an understatement to say they seldom agree on issues. Yet, they were seen being genuinely friendly by millions of people. What is the harm in that? There is none.

Like the psalmist says… sing a new song.

Terence Y Jan 11, 2025 8:06am

Happy New Year, Kat Berger. Perhaps I misunderstand but are you implying that you believe everything on Meta and you’re not a believer in free unrestricted access? If so, I’d say the new and very sad order in the once-great USA is that folks are too willing to listen to someone else tell them what to think and believe. Especially when that someone, such as Meta, willingly censors facts (and has admitted to doing so) and is all too happy to censor those who disseminate the truth. It’s a new year, don’t believe everything on Meta, or anywhere else. Take control and do the research.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading. To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.

We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.

A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!