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.
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.