The argument to that is when a company becomes so big and influential, it has a moral obligation to adhere to 1st amendment, purely from an ethical point, even though it doesn’t have to.

Would you be able to give an example of how the people he picked are bad for the environment, I’m curious.

UK tried to ban RT, claiming it has spread misinformation, the investigation did not find anything published by RT as untrue. Nowadays you have to watch RT to get any sort of info from the hot zones, since they actually have reporters on a ground, Syria ,etc.

“is so deeply inane that it pains me to even republish it”

“There is literally no reason for them to be lying about that”

The traditional news agencies, are not immune to posting fake stories if it fits the agenda, so I wouldn’t use it as a rule, however the Moon landing was certainly real.

The MSM and their collaborators (Giz included) have gotten so used to spreading their narrative with little to no resistance, that they’ve gotten genuinely SHOCKED by the idea of being challenged. We’ve gotten to the point where the “trolls” have to deliver the truth, while the so called professional journalists are…

You saying it like Putin just does it for shits and giggles, the US tried to grab Ukraine into its sphere of influence, Putin retaliated, now piss him off again, he’ll do the same. 

Those “murderers” have liberated Aleppo from head chopping Jihadists, people can now celebrate Christmas there for the first time.

Facts themselves are a good thing, but what a news agency does with them is a whole different story, one of the most common methods is to focus on negative facts and to omit the good ones, hence malevolently giving a reader a skewed picture.

People naturally want to stand up for what’s fair and if they see injustice.

It’s a tough choice, under Clinton, you’d probably had to face Russia in a full out war, under Trump, you’ll most likely be sent to fight ISIS, not a walk in a park either.

That’s not how the due process works, if our society thought like this, then every citizen would be considered guilty until proven otherwise.

Since a “landslide victory” is a figure of speech, it could be open to interpretation. For example, winning despite having to face an unprecedented level of opposition, when almost all members of media, show business, and tech industry tried to convince people not to vote for him. So this is more about formal…

What I mean is I wouldn’t rely on an extension that only serves one side of a political spectrum. For example when I enter “Bana Alabed” in politifact.com search box, there’s 0 results, yet the Washington Post has numerous articles on her existence as if it was a confirmed fact.

An information bubble is exactly what’s being created by an extension like this.

The screenshots presented in this article show the extension stating that these tweets are “incorrect or false” yet then continue with an explanation that sounds very vague and opinionated, they agree the questions were sent, then quickly change the subject to the origin of hacks and on the second screenshot the…

The risk of this being abused is too high, it would be - whoever controls the fact checking (possibly slander) button, wins.

Considering the only users who would install this are the people who seek to disapprove Trump, it would create more confirmation bias and echo chamber for that group only. Also, there’s a conflict of interests, when the fact checking is performed by an opposing source.

You mean the false accusations, designed to discredit and silence Julian?