• rottingleaf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    A government … only in theory does. Like a church represents God, because humans are too dumb to understand him directly.

    “Fact-checking” is preserving a certain model of censorship and propaganda. “No fact-checking” is moving to a new model of censorship and propaganda.

    Both sides of this fight prefer it being called such, so that one seems against misinformation, and the other seems against censorship, but they are not really different in this dimension. They are different in strategy and structure and interests, but neither is good for the average person.

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      “Fact-checking” is preserving a certain model of censorship and propaganda. “No fact-checking” is moving to a new model of censorship and propaganda.

      Dude, facts are facts or they are not. There is no rejection of fact checking that will result in more truths being exposed to the world, only less.

      • Saleh@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        You give authority to define “facts” to a fact checking institution. That institution may not be sufficiently independent. Because of meddling the institution spreads lies under the claim they would be facts and declares actual facts as lies.

        Just think about a fact checking under the authority of Trump, Musk, Zuckerberg, AIPAC…

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          this is mostly an american take, and most of the rest of the world tends to disagree with this “free speech absolutism”

          it’s the slippery slope fallacy