Why should I believe what I here just because I hear it on the news or someone is elected a fact checker, even "independant fact checker,"?

[William4447]

seems like authoritarian totalitarian elitis ta me. they could easily just lie, or be misled themselves, or use photoshop, and a million people believe them, and they could believe a lie, and the cia or fbi could lie to, and manipulate statistics. it seems like just becomes who is cool or popular coud just bully othr people into believing it, or shame other people.

doesn't seem like its protecting democracy, but protecting facism.

tell me how this works. how are people elected a fact checker?

why should i trust someone just because they call themsleves a fact checker, when there's a million other fact checkers out there? other people do there research and actually look into things more. these people could just suck up to cia brainwashing or something.

Updates

+1 y

Answer these question or I won't respond to you and I will report your answer as irrelevant.

Who fact checks the fact checkers when there facts are wrong?

[provokeesmokee]

If you doubt the fact checker (often required to provide links to evidence anyways), then check on your own via following the same sources, reading and understanding them, and debunking what you feel is wrong WITH PROOF.

But the whole "they could fake it" shit... You need to accept that sometimes you WILL be wrong and need to change your mind.

If you think every time someone or something doesn't align with your existing beliefs, they're "lying" or "misinformed", you will not be able to genuinely engage in any sort of information clarification or gathering.

If you need an external reason or validation for believing what you are reading, every time, you'll only become a skeptic about everything. Even things you can witness for yourself.

Learn about the fact checkers you doubt. Ask the organizations that act as them questions and seek clarity around how and where they fact check.

And, above all, accept it's sometimes gonna suck to learn you're wrong. It happens, but it's how you move foward and overcome previous misunderstandings that defines your future outcomes.

[William4447]

Oh I can. Cross check information. But the thing is they can say the CIA said this or some harvard study said this. people act like sources themselves can't be criticized, or machines can't be faulty.

you missed the whole point of my question. I ddont get why you lectured me fr. I sometimes say im wrong on here and open to change my views on here all the time.

[William4447]

"YouTube Video" or "Mainstream CNN Video" is not evidence. one set source is not very nuanced.

[William4447]

youtube can have good videos alright ill modify that but its just that the algorithim right now is pretty politically and interest biased and certain videos come up over others.

[William4447]

youtube is not the easiest place to find the "truth" on things.

[Stacey55666]

I don't think there is such a thing as an independent or unbiased fact checker. They all seem to have an agenda.

[NaultD]

The independent fact checker should have multiple sources for yourself to look at aswell. The fact checker is paid for being quick and not from any one source they gather from. It's not accounting all bias but is excluding the most blatant form of biases from the sources.

It's far from perfect but with how quick the internet is, it's quarter decent. Unless we get ride of profit motivation and capitalism that is about as far we can get. Gotta put some good faith into something sooner rather then later.

[William4447]

where is there sources? what if where they getting from, is flawed, or payed off, or cia/fbi propaganda?

[William4447]

what ist here news media source is lying or misinformed>

[William4447]

why quick? why should i trust a quick guy rather than someone else who spent years talking about, researching and/or experiencing the subject

[NaultD]

Be a responsible person and follow up where ever it's available. It should be listed on the bottom of any article.

[William4447]

there should be cross checked by multiple sources. its not just about "facts."

if your having a conversation with me and i just lecture you about facts, you would tell me im a pretentious asshole. 10 years ago we called those people pretentious. now we give them money.

[William4447]

there should be a nuanced discussion about things, and giving you a full scope of nuanced information, not just "here's some FACTS"

[William4447]

I can easily gaslight and bully a person and manipulate them into believing things. If I was a media personality or CIA operative, I could do it even better.

Debunk what im saying, bro.

[William4447]

instead of fact check, we could just have independant machine or the ability to find the source or explain the nuances of the source. "fact check" is way to un-nuanced and dismissive and easy to gaslight peopl and hide the truth and easy for narcissist manipulaters to take advantag of

[AngryCarl2]

That's actually a very good question. Who checks the fact checkers? Ideally you would use multiple sources and cross-check them. Or you could use your own critical faculties to assess the plausibility of the stories in question.

[William4447]

Its very annoying and bs and its annoyed me

in the beginning i understood it but it got annoying and the independant factcheckers i was like oh cool im an independant to maybe theyll actually be but a lot of the independant ones were more frair minded but were doing the same stuff

its good to remain calm here there is consequences for fact checkers who act up and bully people and are proven wrong on many occasion but im still curious on how it work and if we can hold them accountable when there proven wrng and keep being stubborn and causig trouble and lying and not listening to anyone i mean its kinda scary that the media can actually pretend to have the facts and not be held to much scrutiny i mean people question it and dont trust it but your also expected to believe a lot of things i beleive they use a independant fact checker machine online and stuf but that is a cop out somtimes because why should i trust a machine if machines make errors all the time adn the machine could be used to make biases all the time even if the programmer says its independant or tells it to be independant

[AngryCarl2]

It's not illegal to lie unless it's covered by a specific law such as defamation or consumer protection statutes. When I was younger it seemed to be socially unacceptable to lie but now it seems like nobody cares. Most people simply choose to believe whatever supports their chosen agenda.