The Wall Street Journal editorial board came out in favor of potentially revising Section 230 protections for social media companies after an op-ed it published was the subject of a “phony” fact-check, resulting in its reduced distribution on Facebook.
“We’ve been leery of proposals in Congress to modify Section 230 protections that shield internet platforms from liability,” the editors wrote. “But social-media giants are increasingly adding phony fact checks and removing articles flagged by left-leaning users without explanation. In short, they are acting like publishers in vetting and stigmatizing the content of reputable publishers. The legal privileges that enable these companies to dominate public discourse need to be debated and perhaps revised.”
The news comes after a Wall Street Journal op-ed written by Johns Hopkins surgeon Marty Makary argued that the United States could approach reaching herd immunity from COVID-19 in April. But Facebook’s group of fact-checkers took issue with the story, calling it “misleading” while claiming Makary’s argument was “unsubstantiated.”
“Three scientists analysed the article and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be very low,” said Health Feedback, one of Facebook’s fact-checkers.
Once that rating came in, Facebook took action to limit the distribution of Makary’s op-ed to ensure “fewer people” saw the “misinformation.”
But the Wall Street Journal editors argued that Makary’s op-ed was not an attempt to make a “factual claim” but instead was an analysis of available evidence that was used to make a projection.
“But the progressive health clerisy don’t like his projection because they worry it could lead to fewer virus restrictions. The horror!” the editors wrote. “Health Feedback’s fact checkers disagree with the evidence Dr. Makary cites as well as how he interprets it. Fine. Scientists disagree all the time. Much of conventional health wisdom about red meat, sodium and cardiovascular risk is still fiercely debated.”
The editors then go on to fact-check Facebook’s fact-checkers, pointing out that Health Feedback’s scientists often “cherry-pick” data of their own, use “arbitrary” rules for calculating herd immunity, or in one case used a “single piece of ambiguous evidence” in an attempt to discredit Makary.
“Scientists often disagree over how to interpret evidence. Debate is how ideas are tested and arguments are refined,” the editors said. “But Facebook’s fact-checkers are presenting their opinions as fact and seeking to silence other scientists whose views challenge their own.”
The story marks the second recent incident the publication’s editorial board has sparred with Facebook’s fact-checkers, with the Wall Street Journal slamming fact-checkers last month who attempted to limit distribution of credible claims that windmills shouldered much of the blame for the Texas energy crisis.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“Climate-change conformity is hard for the media to resist, but we don’t mind,” the editors said in a fact-check of their own. “So here are the facts to cut through the spin.”
Facebook did not immediately respond to the Washington Examiner’s request for comment.
