Good point. Although, arguably, "fact checking" is merely replying to what others are saying. It's a "the solution to free speech is more speech" approach.
Agreed. Who snopes the snopes? Did you know Snopes has been shown to be biased since it is ran by people who lean one direction, who stops them from misinforming the public. What about when politicians are exposed and the media shields them are we just going to blindly trust a biased media source?
We need to allow the people to review all evidence and form conclusions from said evidence. I cant tell you how many times I have followed up on media articles only to find that the media just spat anything out for ads. Without all the facts it is bias and speculation.
Objective reality leans in one direction on America's political spectrum, objective fact checkers are going to lean closer to the left of America's overton window by default.
Well, ultimately it's a question of authority. I cannot, or have no time to, validate even the simplest statements about something non-controversial, e.g. physics, but I choose to trust scientists and ignore some guy on Youtube who claims relativity is a hoax.
Removing the video from youtube by the fact-checkers would be problematic anyway, however it would be fine if there was a disclaimer on it referring a specific authority in physics that has views that disagree with it.
