this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
534 points (99.3% liked)
science
23466 readers
77 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
It's not a war, it's an occupation
It's a visceral reaction to .world and "fact checkers". Your account is concerning in that you present yourself as a fact checker, yet we have no idea what your motives are.
I am not anti-scientific, I am anti-gatekeeper.
It's funny you should bring that up deceptichum...
Seriously, could your usernames possibly be more on the nose? This feels like a setup.
I feel like I should definitely ignore both of your posts and let the article speak for itself.
My name is a play on the Transformers Decepticons.
But hey, go do whatever the fuck you want mate.
Oh I caught that, totally. But that doesn't change what it literally says... That shits funny!
"Believe me, those people shouldn't be trusted!" -Ronald McLiar
Isn't this what editors used to do?
Somewhat, many of them also inserted their own biases - e.x. headlines.
The news/information landscape is pretty fucked, a handful of mainstream sources that all proliferate the same information. It became painfully apparent how biased these groups were with the genocide in Gaza and their attempts to suppress or distort the facts.
Luckily there are amazing independent or small scale journalists, who do real investigative research and deep dives but they're so poorly funded.
Lie factories like Facebook need to be dismantled, and funding needs to go to prop up high quality news sources.
There are many competing fact checkers. Compare their fact checking.
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
The burden of proof and discovery makes the goal of information too complicated for many. The more complex a system, the more it's likely to fail.
And when it's a technochristofascist authoritarian government or it's media allies being the 'fact' checker? We cannot rely on institutions or arbiters as the gate keepers of accuracy.
My solution would be to teach people to be skeptical, how to recognise biases, and how to fact check on their own.
you're talking about critical thinking, which is also under vicious attack by the GOP, but yes, i agree: when the fact-checkers belong to the very people who are spreading not-facts, then what do you have?
does this mean we should dismiss fact-checking as a thing people should do? because--make no mistake-- the end goal here is for you to have the mindset that "whatever dear leader says is absolute truth, and anything else is fake news"
you can literally see this in trump supporters.
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.
No
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.