My only issue is that even facts can be spun. If there's going to be fact checkers, they themselves need to be routinely checked and their biases listed.

Also OP, I've checked your post history and can see a fair few news articles about conflicts over the world but zero mention of Gaza in any of them - is that your bias?

Edit: Yeah, I've now been shown some decent enough confirmation that OP is a Zionist and promotes disinformation. Case in point, agenda driven fact checking is an issue and we cannot trust random sources who proclaim to be such.

[–] FactChecker@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago (2 children)

What in the whatabotism is this? There are scholars and posters that can focus on specific regions. I have deep knowledge about Sahel, Syria, and Ukraine, and I have posted credible articles about said regions and INDOPAC. I can talk about misinformation by a number of actors surrounding the Gaza war but I am not as proficient in the topic as some of my acquaintances are and in general I don't like to believe popular vote based forums are conducive to any kind of appropriate discussion on the topic. I don't understand the anti-scientific combativeness in your attitude, do all scientists have to cover all topics? I can also see your comment history but I think this is not the place for such a discussion. I do believe in highlighting Africa as a region that is deeply ignored despite JNIM and ISWAP causing more that 10x the deaths of all other terrorism in the world combined, Sudan war, etc.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 5 months ago

It's not a war, it's an occupation

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If there’s going to be fact checkers, they themselves need to be routinely checked and their biases listed.

Isn't this what editors used to do?

[–] odd@scribe.disroot.org 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

There are many competing fact checkers. Compare their fact checking.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au -3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

If we have to manually fact check the fact checkers ourselves, it defeats the purpose of them in the first place.

[–] U7826391786239@lemmy.zip 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

If we have to manually fact check the fact checkers ourselves, it defeats the purpose of them in the first place.

what follows from this statement is that you should be skeptical of everything you read or hear

and yes, you should. does that take more work? yes, it does. especially under a technochristofascist authoritarian government who tells you that anyone considered "expert in their field" is not to be trusted since they advocate for vaccines while we [the government in charge of running the country], for some reason...don't.

does everything about this fucking suck? also yes, it does. what else do we have? between being skeptical of fact-checkers and eliminating fact-checkers (the direction the party is pushing you towards), sorry, i choose fact-check the fact-checkers

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 months ago

This assumes that there is an objective and 100% contextualized truth, which is never the case. Getting a free frogurt seems unquestionably a boon, until you learn it's cursed and contains potassium benzoate.

[–] odd@scribe.disroot.org -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Personally, I think it's annoying that this got down votes. It's short and dismissive, but it's correct. Sometimes it's just not worth longer answers.

Also, some arguments should be dismissed, just ask a judge.