Having finally been censored by the Facebook so-called fact-checkers, I have decided to take the opportunity (as a matter of responsibility) to explain why censoring the free flow of communication (even when the intentions are good) rather than ensuring an open-source free-flow of peer to peer communication, will not only stifle human innovation but also speed up the decline of human civilization.
The post that was censored (a post that I shared) contained a video of a person testing CO2 levels beneath his cloth mask. In the description, I wrote the following: “This is a good example of Civilian Journalism. In this video, the man tests the oxygen/Co2 levels when wearing a mask and not wearing a mask. Whether or not one agrees with his conclusion and/or the validity of the test results (which I'm not sure that I do), I think that we the people benefit by counting on one another for research, rather than counting on profit-driven corporations to do it for us.”
As you can see, in sharing an example of Civilian Journalism, while also sharing the findings of one Civilian Scientist (for which I also clearly stated that I wasn’t sure I agreed with), I was soon rewarded by a notice stating, False Information, Checked by Independent fact-checkers.
The first problem here, is that instead of actually checking the claims of the post itself, Facebook’s fact-checkers used an entirely different claim - made by an organization that was mentioned in the video - to then reverse-check it with the organization’s claim (that didn’t actually conflict with claims in the video) to then claim that the information in the video was false, which was not only inaccurate but also a form of misinformation now being purveyed by Facebook’s so-called fact-checkers.
Here is the response that I posted on my Facebook timeline: It seems to me that the Facebook fact checker's claim of inaccurate information is in itself inaccurate or slanted. A common theme I'm seeing these days has to do with responding to statements or information with counter-information associated with a slightly different claim or statement. For example, in the case of a citizen journalist self-testing CO2 levels associated with wearing masks, the man never claims that OSHA discourages the use of masks. "Facebook fact checkers nevertheless respond by claiming that "OSHA encourages workers to use facemasks..." and therefore labels it as false information. Which is kind of like fact-checking someone who says drinking plenty of liquids is important on a hot day, and having Facebook respond by labeling it False Information: drinking bleach is not recommended.
The whole thing would almost be humorous, as though the cognitive flow of thinking of one of the most influential and powerful communication companies is now in the process of degenerating to child-level levels of cognitive ability. Unfortunately, as Facebook happens to be one of the most powerful communications companies in the world, what flows down and through it, can and will affect (or infect, as the case may be) human civilization, herein presenting a clear and present danger to human civilization if their censorship is left unchecked by the the real fact-checkers, the people of the world. To be continued in Part 2.