They describe themselves as “impartial” and having “no conflicts of interest” but are they really as impartial as they make out. Let’s have a look at 3 of them, shall we ? Reuters, Factcheck.org and Full Fact New Thread/Post Within the last few weeks Dr Robert Malone on the Joe Rogan show used the term “mass formation psychosis”. It began to trend like crazy on Twitter. It is pretty obvious what it means but for the sake of completeness here is one definition of it
I love the fact that Facebook had to admit in a US court case a couple of weeks ago that it's fact checks were only opinion and therefore protected speech under the First Ammendment, as a defamation defence. The case was Sossel v Meta (Facebook).
Superb!
I love the fact that Facebook had to admit in a US court case a couple of weeks ago that it's fact checks were only opinion and therefore protected speech under the First Ammendment, as a defamation defence. The case was Sossel v Meta (Facebook).
More detail in the video linked below.
https://youtu.be/URZTVfmuhJI
The creater of craiglist for example too, created his organisation and funds the “fact” checkers, while he himself is part of the WEF young globals.
Even gaming services as DIscord now follow the fact checkers and censor everything that goes against the narrative.