Trump threatens to shut down social media platforms after Twitter tags his posts as misinformation.

[Broomstick]

Fact checking is determining whether or not a statement is congruent with actual reality. It shouldn't be political, even if in today's USA it has become politicized.

[Jub]

Fact checking is determining whether or not a statement is congruent with actual reality. It shouldn't be political, even if in today's USA it has become politicized.

That's fine for things that have a clear cut yes or no answer, but what about things which are more shades of grey or open to interpretation? Or even for things that are clear cut, which posters do you focus on if you can't catch everything, do you remove the messages or affix a warning to them, how much do you bend to the laws of a given nation when it comes to censoring messages? It's all political when you dig down into it.

[Broomstick]

When a political official claim he never said something he did (as an example I just pulled out of my ass) and there is video of him saying exactly that, that qualifies as a fact-check.

Sure, some things are opinion. Others are very much fact. Facts can be fact-checked. Opinions and "shades of grey" would not apply. Did I really need to explain this to you?

[bilateralrope]

That's fine for things that have a clear cut yes or no answer, but what about things which are more shades of grey or open to interpretation? Or even for things that are clear cut, which posters do you focus on if you can't catch everything, do you remove the messages or affix a warning to them, how much do you bend to the laws of a given nation when it comes to censoring messages? It's all political when you dig down into it.

Have any social media platforms been fact checking anything that falls into those problematic areas ?

[Jub]

Have any social media platforms been fact checking anything that falls into those problematic areas ?

Google does things like changing how borders are shown depending on where you use their maps service from, Twitter blocks Nazi content for its German users, Facebook colludes to get Trump elected. Tell me these things aren't political.

[bilateralrope]

Have any social media platforms been fact checking anything that falls into those problematic areas ?

Google does things like changing how borders are shown depending on where you use their maps service from,

That doesn't sound like a fact check because there is no user post to fact check.

Twitter blocks Nazi content for its German users,

That's blocking content. Not fact checking it. Also, isn't that a matter of German law, not Twitters decision ?

Facebook colludes to get Trump elected. Tell me these things aren't political.

Did Facebook's collusion include any fact checking ?

[Jub]

That doesn't sound like a fact check because there is no user post to fact check.

Borders and disputes about borders are things that exist and changing how you display cold hard facts.

That's blocking content. Not fact checking it. Also, isn't that a matter of German law, not Twitters decision ?

How do you know something that isn't completely overt is a Nazi post without fact-checking it?

Did Facebook's collusion include any fact checking ?

It involved the opposite in many cases. Though how would one fact check posts about 'crooked Hilary's emails' or 'Hilary's a warmonger' type articles anyway?

-----

Beyond all of this, what they do or don't investigate is a choice that can be political, choosing to remove a post versus flagging it can be political, what is and isn't a falsehood is political. For an example of the last point, one of these is a lie and the others are a grey area:

Post 1: "I never said that."

Post 2: "I don't recall having said that."

Post 3: "That's was taken out of context."

These could all be lies but only one is strictly cut and dry without room for interpretation. Once interpretation comes in so too does politics.

[Broomstick]

And yet....

Post 1: "I never said that" - look to see if there are any posts/videos showing the opposite

Post 2: "I don't recall having said that" - well, OK, someone's memory might be faulty but you can still establish whether or not they actually said something, whether they recall it or not.

Post 3: "That was taken out of context" - OK, provide the context and let the reader/viewer decide.

[Jub]

And yet....

Post 1: "I never said that" - look to see if there are any posts/videos showing the opposite

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Post 2: "I don't recall having said that" - well, OK, someone's memory might be faulty but you can still establish whether or not they actually said something, whether they recall it or not.

Is this the duty of social media? Should this apply to just politicians or to all public figures? Does it apply to things said off the record or only to official statements?

Post 3: "That was taken out of context" - OK, provide the context and let the reader/viewer decide.

How much on each side of a quote establishes context; is there an established metric for that?