In response to pressure to eliminate content that is false and misleading, Facebook is in the process of establishing “objective” outside review boards, that will review posted material and determine if the content is “false,” or inaccurate with the ostensible purpose of halting the spread of “fake news.”
The difficulty is that Facebook staff is overwhelmingly Democrat; upwards of 93% of all employee contributions went to Democratic candidates in the last Congressional elections. Despite the contention that the fact checkers are impartial, they are hired by people who share their same world-view.
A recent incident makes a mockery of Facebook’s contention that its outside review boards will be “independent.” The outside review board in this instance indicates that Facebook is not off to a good start in terms of preserving freedom of speech and allowing diverse views on its platform.
The company’s third-party fact checkers, removed an article that questioned whether global warming was a hoax and expressed skepticism concerning some of the data collected. Since the article’s authors didn’t subscribe to the catechism of global warming, the reviewers deemed the story as “false” and hence subject to removal for its alleged inaccuracy. In short, the reviewers found the authors to be global warming deniers.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the attempt to establish rules for content review,
“…coincide with Facebook’s decision last week to remove a false designation from a Washington Examiner opinion piece, overriding the conclusion of one of its fact-check partners. That op-ed argued that global-warming climate models have been inaccurate and that the risks of climate change is overblown.”
The global warming instance indicates the difficulties inherent in Facebook’s recent attempt to establish a procedural mechanism to determine which content that is published on its platform constitutes fake news. Once media organs and progressive political elites declare the “science is settled,” which has been the club global warming ideologues use to stifle dissent