Facebook Fact Checkers Are Not Checking Facts
Aug 15, 2021 General, Political
Facebook is an arm of the federal government that helps Democrat causes. One can be fairly certain that whenever there is some information that the swamp does not want to go to the masses, Facebook and the other social media arms of big government go into action to ensure that information does not see the light of day. Mark Zuckerberg is the only true disinformation campaign on Facebook.
In the past year we have seen labels on posts about Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, Hunter Biden’s laptop and a myriad of other items that Facebook is told by its partners in government to quash. Now this might lead one to believe that they are only stopping the spread of bad information but that is not true. The items listed above are now being demonstrated as true statements. Of course, this comes after the election to ensure the left and the swamp RINOs can maintain control.
To be clear, Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin work. This was known before the pandemic as Fauci’s people showed it was effective against SARS CoV1. The major reason Fauci said it did not work and to follow the science that he neglected to follow is because if there are effective treatments then Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) cannot be granted for a drug. This would mean Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson would have to go through the regular process to get their drugs approved and that would take years. Fauci and the swamp creatures along with their partners at Facebook can’t allow that to happen when they have a fortune to make in stock in those companies, now can they?
As for Hunter Biden’s laptop, it has been demonstrated that it is indeed his, it was not Russian disinformation and that he (and possibly his father) engaged in inappropriate sexual contact with children and that they have business dealings with other nations that are illegal and leave Joe Biden open to blackmail. This would probably have derailed his campaign so Zuckerberg had to step in to help.
So what about these “Fact” checkers? I recently shared a post questioning the efficacy of masks and lockdowns. Facebook was quick to do the master’s bidding and flag it as false. They proceeded to attach a tag to inform me that:
Scientific evidence demonstrates that wearing face masks and implementing lockdowns reduce the spread of COVID-19 – Health Feedback
The link goes to a review of one or two sources that conducted retrospective assessments. They claim that since there are fewer deaths and cases after masking and lockdowns than the computer models predicted then those actions MUST be effective.
This is what passes as science. Obviously they can’t ethically do studies that denies certain people masks or lockdowns (if they wanted them) and possibly expose them to a virus BUT if they are going to look around perhaps they should include many observations. Perhaps they can explain why Switzerland is 45th in the world in deaths per million when they did not have a country wide lockdown and masks were not mandated. However, this too can be misleading because not all countries behaved unilaterally within their own borders. The US is a prime example. We have fifty different states and DC (I will leave out our territories). The way this was handled varies widely among these states and the District.
If Lockdowns and masks are effective or give you a better chance then one would expect to see better numbers in states that had strict measures and high numbers in those that did not. The top three states in the US for deaths per million are New Jersey, York York and Massachusetts and they are states with tough lockdown and mask mandates throughout the pandemic. The states that weigh in above the US average are a mixture of states that did things to differing degrees. Given this data one could just as easily conclude that the lockdowns and mask mandates had no effect on the spread of disease and the associated deaths.
There are plenty of things to look at and conclude one way or the other and that is just what the alleged fact checkers at Facebook do. They look for one study or one instance to use as the basis in fact while ignoring anything to the contrary. These fact checkers have even used such scientific methods as “it is unlikely that it could happen” as the basis for a tag on a post.
What is really going on is that Facebook is using a group of people that receive paychecks from Mark Zuckerberg to come to a predetermined conclusion and mask (pun intended) that process with the words “Independent Fact Checker”. These people are far from independent and they are far from fact checkers. Facebook is not the only one either. The Twitter fact checkers labeled what the Mike Lindell symposium pointed out about elections as false BEFORE the symposium ever started…
In addition to falsely demonstrating that people are incorrect the fact checkers provide ammunition for Facebook to throttle down a person’s feed. They specifically state that continuing to spread false information (but only false if their people say so) can result in your feed being pushed down where others will not see it. They also use the fact checkers as a reason to restrict your account. My account has been restricted twice in the past two weeks and I traced it back to something I shared that they said was false. They say in order to prevent you from spreading disinformation your access to account features has been temporarily restricted.
In any event, if you see one of these tags do not assume that they are actually correct or that something was actually fact checked. I have seen the tags show up nearly instantly when it would have been impossible to look at the post and determine it was false in that amount of time. I maintain a high index of suspicion when I see any of these tags because Facebook and the Nazi running it have demonstrated time and again that they have an agenda and they will silence anyone to advance that agenda. It is also obvious that the agenda is driven by their partners in the swampy federal government.
As for me, I can post here. Mark Zuckerberg has no say at this site. He can’t put tags on this site. He can’t restrict my features of this site and he cannot prohibit me from posting here. Do I have as broad a reach as he? No way and I never will but I have a reach and it is an honest one.
I, unlike Judas Zuckerberg, did not sell out to government for the 30 pieces of silver.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: Facebook lies, fake checkers, government operatives., restrictions
Hillary Then And Now
Jan 22, 2010 Political
In 1998 when Bill Clinton’s sex scandal was the big news, news that broke because Matt Drudge posted it after it was quashed in the MSM, Hilary had an opinion about the Internet. Hillary said she did not know what she was in favor of but it sounded like she favored some kind of regulation.
…I don’t know what — that’s why I said I don’t know what I’m in favor of. And I don’t know enough to know what to be in favor of, because I think it’s one of those new issues we’ve got to address. We’ve got to see whether our existing laws protect people’s right of privacy, protect them against defamation. And if they can, how do you do that when you can press a button and you can’t take it back. So I think we have to tread carefully. Drudge Report
Hillary said that without some kind of gatekeeping function it was difficult to defend a reputation. It probably did not occur to her that Bill’s reputation was hurt when he had the affair and then lied about it. If he had been telling the truth then it would have been Drudge’s reputation that needed to be defended.
Thirteen years later and with news of China continuing to censor the Internet, Ms. Clinton still has an opinion though it is different than it was back then.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday called for an unfettered worldwide Internet and urged global condemnation of those who conduct cyber attacks, as China sought to contain tension with the United States over the hacking and censorship of Google.
“A new information curtain is descending across much of the world,” she said, calling growing Internet curbs the modern equivalent of the Berlin Wall.
“We stand for a single Internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas,” said Clinton in a major address that cited China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt among countries that censored the Internet or harassed bloggers. Yahoo News
Well things have certainly changed with regard to her position on this.
Did it change because the scandal left Bill relatively unscathed and now China is the focus?
What do you think prompted her position reversal? I would be interested to read your opinions in the comment section.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: china, Clinton, Hillary, internet, monica, restrictions, scandal, sex