On the contrary «fact checkers» have rarely had any other function than persisting propaganda for the status quo, which quite often have turned out not to be true.
Lab leak theory is a good example if you want to deep dive into the history of how it was treated (by the government, by journalists, by social media).
The pangolin soup theory of COVIDs origin was touted by fact checkers as true. This was despite real concern from actual scientists.
Fact checkers fall into three possibly overlapping categories:
1. Government censorship units designed explicitly to convey what the government says as ultimate truth
2. Activist organizations using fact checking to control a narrative
3. Useful idiots who cite news or highly contentious sources (Wikipedia) as a source of truth
All 3 of these represent a version of “truth” conditioned on what sounds good or controls a narrative. “Common knowledge” is not always fact, too. In many cases fact checkers would be nice to have the truth is unknowable (think classified data). In no case are fact checkers unambiguously correct as they are often portrayed. Unfortunately, however, they are often given the unassailable position as truth-bearers. The “facts” (read “narrative”) changes so quickly on topics where a true oracle of truth would be indispensable the purpose of a fact checker is, factually, worthless.
This link isn't specific to the pangolin theory, but it's a readable review of a very competent debate about COVID origins, so I'd recommend it (and the debate it reviews) for those curious about the state of the arguments (as of early 2024): https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-r...
When making a little extra profit and swapping an expensive team for some AI can be trumpeted as "reducing censorship", suddenly surveillance advertising king, Facebook, is on-board.
In the same way that monopolies that produce super-profits are called "innovation" (innovation in profit-making, that is).
And George Orwell thought the communists were fond of double-speak.
Worryingly sounds like "Let the fake news and propaganda proliferate for profit."
expressions of worry are so plentiful
On the contrary «fact checkers» have rarely had any other function than persisting propaganda for the status quo, which quite often have turned out not to be true.
I say good riddance.
Examples?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42619935 springs to mind.
Lab leak theory is a good example if you want to deep dive into the history of how it was treated (by the government, by journalists, by social media).
The pangolin soup theory of COVIDs origin was touted by fact checkers as true. This was despite real concern from actual scientists.
Fact checkers fall into three possibly overlapping categories:
1. Government censorship units designed explicitly to convey what the government says as ultimate truth
2. Activist organizations using fact checking to control a narrative
3. Useful idiots who cite news or highly contentious sources (Wikipedia) as a source of truth
All 3 of these represent a version of “truth” conditioned on what sounds good or controls a narrative. “Common knowledge” is not always fact, too. In many cases fact checkers would be nice to have the truth is unknowable (think classified data). In no case are fact checkers unambiguously correct as they are often portrayed. Unfortunately, however, they are often given the unassailable position as truth-bearers. The “facts” (read “narrative”) changes so quickly on topics where a true oracle of truth would be indispensable the purpose of a fact checker is, factually, worthless.
> The pangolin soup theory of COVIDs origin was touted by fact checkers as true. This was despite real concern from actual scientists.
I'm curious to learn more about this. Where can I read into this?
This link isn't specific to the pangolin theory, but it's a readable review of a very competent debate about COVID origins, so I'd recommend it (and the debate it reviews) for those curious about the state of the arguments (as of early 2024): https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-r...
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/wet-market-sources-co...
Here's one place I found. But searching "COVID wet market" and "Pangolin COVID" will yield a treasure trove of articles talking about it.
[flagged]
Discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42621627
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42622147
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42621627
When making a little extra profit and swapping an expensive team for some AI can be trumpeted as "reducing censorship", suddenly surveillance advertising king, Facebook, is on-board.
In the same way that monopolies that produce super-profits are called "innovation" (innovation in profit-making, that is).
And George Orwell thought the communists were fond of double-speak.