Full Fact plays free speech victim to JD Vance and Zuckerberg

The role of fact checkers such as full fact as our social media overlords - capable of applying context to any conversation has been reduced with Facebook and Twitter both throwing out fact checkers in preference for Community notes.[1] And fact checkers like FullFact have decided to play the role of free speech victim.[2][3]

Facebook commented that too much content that people understood to be legitimate debate was being fact checked and that together with labeling and reduced distribution fact checking acted as a tool for censorship.[4] The use administration has moved against fact checkers - rather than using them as a tool for censorship. In a speech in Munich, Vice President JD Vance argued that vested interests were hiding behind the “Soviet era” word of misinformation to censor alternative viewpoints.[3]

Vance cites the example of the lab leak theory for the origin of COVID as an idea which was labelled as misinformation. UK Fact checker full fact had commented at the time that there was “no evidence” for the lack leak theory.[5] While some intelligence agency now refer view the lab leak theory as likely. [6]

Now that political winds have changed, FullFact is playing the role of glib victim.[7] FullFact downplays the idea that they are engaged in censorship arguing that they are just providing context to allow people to make choices. Of course, they have rather changed their tune compared to their resplendent role during the authoritarian era of COVID lockdowns. At that time, FaceBook funded them to produce a framework for handling “incidents” like COVID made in consultation with the likes of Google, Reuters and Twitter.[8] In this report, Full Fact argued that organizations should “Limit bad information” by “[reducing the] circulation of harmful false content and / or address persistent offenders in a proportionate and transparent manner”. During COVID, FullFact lobbied YouTube to algorithmically limit the distribution of videos produced by some creators.[9] They called for Spotify to apply editorial standards (aka censor) to the Joe Rogan podcast arguing that setting up an information center for facts about COVID was not a “credible response” and that spotify should apply editorial standards “like any other media company”.[10] Spotify had responded to contentious material on Joe Rogan podcast by adding contextual information about COVID[11] in a similar manner to what is now suggested by FullFact by apparently at the time this was not sufficient.

But these times are forgotten now. They say “We don’t censor anyone”, though at the same time they argue for the limitation of speech to “prevent harm” - quite a general phrasing that could be broadly interpreted to limit all speech. Full fact joined in with a number of other groups trying to tack their own forms of “harm” to the Online Safety Bill during the conservative government (along with suicide prevention groups, [12] and violence against women charities [13]). Full fact argued for a the inclusion of “collective harms” and harms to the democratic process to legislation.[15]

Full Fact argue that their expert analysis analysis has more value than the consensus analysis of Community notes. Of course my critique of Full Fact would be that there experts are not very expert, often are spokespeople for organizations rather than academics. That they do not effectively interact with academic research.

The also claim that facts are not opinions and they are expressing the former. This is something I am inclined to agree with - but during COVID Full Fact strayed quite a long way from facts talking about narratives, limiting what conclusions one was allowed to form from facts, criticizing people for not including important context, and forming their arguments not based on facts, calling for Joe Rogan and politicians to be censored and censured.

In truth, “consensus” may well be better than Full Fact’s experts because they will actually read the best sources. Full fact aren’t a source of expert information. They are just one more journalistic source - albeit one that at times strives for balance - but at times is blinded by their desire to reduce harm.

Finishing up

This is a post by readwithai. I make tools for research and reading often using Obsidian.

If you are interested in this post you might like to read:

• An analysis of a broad definition reading suitable for creating tooling to aid and replace reading.

• A review of how people take notes using the Markdown editor Obsidian.

• Some thoughts on replacing fact checkers with something better

You can follow me on X, where I mostly write about productivity, reading and tech or my blog where I write more about reading and research.