Thanks for the in depth reply. Interesting that they would bother fact-checking a quote. Why? I think that the statement takes on a new, more powerful meaning if attributed to Orwell than some random dude so they do this to dull the impact.
Also worth pointing out that the fact check makes the unaware user believe that the statement itself isn't true and they have evidence to prove it. Actually they are only saying that Orwell can't be positively linked to having said it. This trick works since I'm betting a very small percentage of their users actually clicks the link to see WHY it's being flagged and just assumes the information is incorrect.
They are stupid, that's why. I've analyzed a lot of these 'fact-checks' and they always go off of something minor to block the whole thing.
Instead of putting a box over "George Orwell" they put it over the whole thing.
If someone signed it -anon it would probably leave them to attack the quote.
I recall there was one thing i saw before, about "Communist rules for revolution" the image was 'fact-checked to be false'. But when i looked at it, it focused completely on the little blurb someone added in. it didn't pay any heed to the fact that the rules were real, but as a result the whole thing got 'blurred out' for one thing that ws 'fact checked'.
It's the deceptive way to hide things they don't like.
So, if you're going to make something like this,, make sure the quote can be attributed to someone.. or verify.. maybe run it by their 'fact checkers' first, then edit out the lame little issue they have so it forces them to attempt to 'fact check' the content, in this case it would have been the quote.
Thanks for the in depth reply. Interesting that they would bother fact-checking a quote. Why? I think that the statement takes on a new, more powerful meaning if attributed to Orwell than some random dude so they do this to dull the impact.
Also worth pointing out that the fact check makes the unaware user believe that the statement itself isn't true and they have evidence to prove it. Actually they are only saying that Orwell can't be positively linked to having said it. This trick works since I'm betting a very small percentage of their users actually clicks the link to see WHY it's being flagged and just assumes the information is incorrect.
I don't need to click "why" to know that facebooks factcheckers are filthy rotten communists.
Back when i was still on facebook abd getting fackchecked every day, i would click those links to see what they had to say.
Then id post that link to my profile, with a snarky one-liner about why i thought their fact checking was shit.
I dont think facebook knew how to handle it when you are posting links to their facechecking pages.
It was fun while it lasted
They are stupid, that's why. I've analyzed a lot of these 'fact-checks' and they always go off of something minor to block the whole thing.
Instead of putting a box over "George Orwell" they put it over the whole thing.
If someone signed it -anon it would probably leave them to attack the quote.
I recall there was one thing i saw before, about "Communist rules for revolution" the image was 'fact-checked to be false'. But when i looked at it, it focused completely on the little blurb someone added in. it didn't pay any heed to the fact that the rules were real, but as a result the whole thing got 'blurred out' for one thing that ws 'fact checked'.
It's the deceptive way to hide things they don't like.
So, if you're going to make something like this,, make sure the quote can be attributed to someone.. or verify.. maybe run it by their 'fact checkers' first, then edit out the lame little issue they have so it forces them to attempt to 'fact check' the content, in this case it would have been the quote.