this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
532 points (99.3% liked)

science

23328 readers
809 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

TLDR: It reduces the virality of misinformation by ~8% and increases article deletion.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] U7826391786239@lemmy.zip 103 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

the fact that fact-checking has become a point of contention (since the emergence of trump--coincidence? lol) illustrates just how far society has fallen.

the idea that fact-checking "infringes upon freedom of expression" is laughably absurd on many levels. for one thing: no, it fucking doesn't. you're free to lie through your teeth day in and day out. what is fact-checking doing to stop that? also, this position implies that your freedom of expression to tell lies outweighs my freedom of expression to call those lies lies? excuse me, but fuck that shit.

2 years ago i would have said i can't believe this article needed to be written (supposedly--equally likely generated), but today i'm not even surprised. fucking fact-checking is under attack, because of course it has to be.

also the claim that fact-checking "has no meaningful impact on the circulation of misinformation" is mind-bogglingly stupid. fact-checking is the ONLY thing that has ANY meaningful impact on the circulation of misinformation.

[–] EtnaAtsume@lemmy.world 16 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I was gonna say, is anyone with good intentions suggesting we get rid of fact checking?

[–] U7826391786239@lemmy.zip 12 points 5 days ago

you know the answer to that question

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

The existence of the article alone is either deliberate or organically emergent bad-faith, even if it's pushing back against a supposed movement against fact-checking, it is legitimizing the argument by saying there's "sides" in the issue.

[–] shane@feddit.nl -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

2 years ago i would have said i can't believe this article needed to be written (supposedly--equally likely generated)

You obviously didn't read the article. 😥

[–] U7826391786239@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 days ago

i admit, i was drunk and skimmed it. sorry.

i stand by everything else i said though

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@piefed.world 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yes, but the fact that it doesn't immediately solve all problems everywhere means that it's useless and we should instead just sling vitriol at each other and advocate for civil war and mass executions.

[–] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

People are downvoting the weirdest things today. I wouldn't have thought your comment needed a sarcasm tag, but here we are.

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@piefed.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The overall score is still positive. People can dislike what they dislike.

Yeah, it's better now. When I commented, you were at around 4:2.

[–] BossDj@piefed.social 29 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I give less shits every day about the "freedom" of allowing harm to others.

And Zuck's business RUNS on engagement. If fact check leads to less engagement as the article says, they are disincentivized of any reason to go forward with it. The danger of abusing "fact check" is very real. We pass a fact check law, and suddenly the US gives a billion to an Elon Musk startup "Fax Chex XxX" or whatever and it just labels stuff as woke and deletes anyone who says Trump is on the Epstein list.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 days ago (2 children)
[–] Meron35@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Are shits countable? Does it depend on if they're metaphorical or physical? 🤔

[–] BossDj@piefed.social 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] realitista@lemmus.org 7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (4 children)

Fewer engagement is grammatically incorrect. Fewer shits is colloquially incorrect. If they want to be a pedant, they should at least know what the fuck they are talking about. If I were to try to improve it, I would change "less shits" to "less of a shit" but it's all slang anyway. Anyone suggesting such a correction is a wanker.

[–] Quibblekrust@thelemmy.club 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fewer shits is colloquially incorrect.

Not in my area. Fewer shits is correct.

If you want to use less, say "less of a shit".

[–] realitista@lemmus.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes I think "less of a shit" is the right way (as I mentioned in the comment above).

Where do you live? UK?

[–] Quibblekrust@thelemmy.club 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I live on the Isle of Quibble.

[–] realitista@lemmus.org 1 points 1 day ago

Ah that tracks

[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 4 days ago

Looked at their profile, the funnier thing is that basically every post they make is grammatically incorrect

[–] BossDj@piefed.social 2 points 4 days ago

I know, I was joking.

[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Used in a sentence:

Fewer and fewer people cared for Prescriptivism, as they are aware that it's an outdated model of linguistics and that it's seen as a waste of everyone's time.

Language is living and breathing, not frozen in amber

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago

counter point: Stannis "the one true king" Baratheon

[–] rimu@piefed.social 21 points 5 days ago

Wohoo, 8%.

Pretty sure they could get it to 80% by just blocking a bunch of obviously fake news websites and taking down the accounts of those intentionally spreading them.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Is this about Twitter? Fuck Twitter. Is this about Facebook? Fuck Facebook.

Shall I continue?

[–] shane@feddit.nl 10 points 4 days ago

It's mostly about Facebook, probably because Twitter already ditched anything other than raw, unfettered Musk-directed propaganda right after he bought it, and also because Facebook ended their fact checking immediately after Trump won, as a visible bending of the knee and kissing of the ring.

As far as I know, there are no fact checking capabilities in any Lemmy setup, which could be useful, so the study is not pointless even in a federated context

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (3 children)

There’s a big difference between actual fact-checking, and the “fact-checking” industry which is controlled by powerful interests to help sell their narrative.

Yeah, gotta watch out for multi billion dollar authoritarian industry of Big Objective Facts^tm^

[–] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The "fact-checking" industry, lol. Fact-checking things is a skill anyone could develop, you don't need an industry.

You won't find the sources for every thing out there, but you can find out a lot if you know how to critically examine information for yourself. Which is better than depending on someone else to fact-check for you, IMO.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago

I didn’t invent the term. Not my fault you don’t know it.

[–] minkymunkey_7_7@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

AKA do your own research? On Facebook and TikTok?