John Stossel is suing Facebook for defamation, claiming that its fact check labels lied about some of the content he's posted.
Before delving into the details of the lawsuit, here's an introduction of the Plaintiff, John Stossel. "John Stossel is an award-winning career journalist and reporter. He worked at ABC News for over twenty-five years, and was also a host of a show on Fox Business. Mr. Stossel has received nineteen Emmy Awards, five awards from the National Press Club, and is also a four-time published author. Currently, he publishes short weekly news videos on social media, primarily on Facebook, where he has over one million followers."
SOURCE 1, page 5.
Now that we know who Stossel is, why's he suing Facebook?
In 2020, Stossel posted on Facebook 2 short videos, and without identifying a single false fact in those videos, Facebook announced that they failed a “fact check”.
SOURCE 1, page 2.
Stossel was given no meaningful avenue to contest these unilateral decisions about the truth of his journalism. Meanwhile, his viewership plummeted due to both Facebook’s censorship and the reputational harm caused by the false labels.
SOURCE 1, page 3.
The two censored videos are referenced as the "fire video" and "alarmism video".
First, here are some details about the "fact check" for the "fire video".
In September of 2020, John Stossel made a video about the role of forest management in the forest fires of 2020.
See SOURCE 2.
He explicitly says that climate change DOES play a role in the fires, and argues that government policies play a larger role.
FB flagged his video as “missing context”, and when someone clicks “see why”, they are directed to a “fact check” page written by Climate Feedback.
See SOURCE 5.
Climate Feedback is one of FB’s fact checkers, under the parent organization “Science Feedback”.
See SOURCE 3.
There are 3 reviewers for this fact check:
Daniel Swain Stefan Doerr Zeke Hausfather
This will be relevant in a moment.
The "fact check" asserts that Stossel’s video made following claim: “Forest fires are caused by poor management. Not by climate change.” their verdict is that the claim is misleading.
Stossel actually agrees that such a claim is misleading.
The problem is that Stossel never made that claim.
To the contrary, he said specifically that “climate change has made things worse”.
Because the fact check lied about his video, Stossel made another video to explain that Facebook is restricting his views based on things he never said!
See SOURCE 4.
He reached out to the editor of Climate Feedback and did not get a response.
Then, he reached out to the 3 reviewers of the fact check, and 2 of them agreed to do an interview: Stefan Doerr and Zeke Hausfather.
During these interviews, Stossel found out that these reviewers had never even seen his video.
Mr. Doerr stated “if this is implying that we have reviewed the video, then this is clearly wrong, there’s something wrong with the system.”
Source 4, Time Stamp - 2:31.
Then Stossel showed them the video, and asked if Climate Feedback’s “missing context” label was fairly applied.
Mr. Hausfather replied “I don’t necessarily think so. While there are plenty of debates around how much to emphasize forest management versus climate change, your piece clearly discussed that both are at fault here.”
SOURCE 4; Time Stamp - 3:19.
Thus, even the REVIEWER for the fact check didn’t agree with the fact check label for the video.
However,
Days later, Mr. Hausfather wrote to Stossel to say that, “AFTER talking with Climate Feedback,” he had changed his mind and now believed that the Fire Video “minimizes the role of climate.”
SOURCE 1, page 12
Shortly after publishing these interviews, Climate Feedback wrote an “update” piece about Stossel’s complaint.
See SOURCE 6.
They stand by their “verdict” that Stossel’s video is “missing context”, and even admit that that the reviewers on their verdict page did not have prior knowledge of the video’s existence, stating this:
“The scientists were not previously familiar with Stossel’s video or the specific rating we had applied to it.”
SOURCE 6.
They say this, and were still comfortable listing these scientists as “reviewers” on the fact check for Stossel’s video.
Next, we'll go over the "fact check" for Stossel's "Alarmism" video.
Stossel made a video titled “Are we doomed?”, quoting scientists saying that some claims about climate change are exaggerated or inaccurate.
See SOURCE 7.
Facebook flagged this video as partly false, and consequently, FB reduced its viewership. On the “fact check” page about this video, there are several claims about inaccurate data.
See SOURCE 8
Stossel responds to this by publishing something like his own fact check of what the fact checkers claimed. In fact, he used the data that the fact checkers presented against them.
SOURCE 9
for example:
The Alarmism video states that sea levels have been rising for over 20,000 years.
The "fact check" says: “[That’s] imprecise and misleading … it implies sea levels have continued rising since then …”
They used a graph that, ironically, shows sea levels have continued to rise since then.
Stossel points this out.
See SOURCE 9.
Am I saying that Stossel’s facts are more accurate than the facts from the fact checkers?
No, and I encourage anyone that’s interested in this topic to see what both Stossel and Climate Feedback have to say about the matter, and throw in your opinions in the comment section below!
Check out sources 8 and 9, and let me know who you think won the "fact check" battle: Stossel VS Climate Feedback. Stossel himself doesn’t assert that his views on climate change being manageable is a leading view. He actually encourages debate on this subject.
“Some points in our video are debatable. We welcome a debate! We’re open to the idea that hurricane intensity is rising, and that CO2 hurts crops. People should keep an open mind about these issues”
See SOURCE 9.
Stossel also made a video response to the "fact check" for the Alarmism video.
Check out SOURCE 10 to view it.
In this video, he says that of the 8 reviewers for the fact check, only ONE of them agreed to an interview. That one person, Patrick Brown, admitted that there weren't any factual inaccuracies in his video,
Brown emailed Stossel stating that “[t]he problem is the omission of contextual information rather than specific ‘facts’ being ‘wrong’.”
SOURCE 1, page 18;
Rather, there was a problem with his "tone".
SOURCE 10, Time Stamp 3:10
Apparently a “bad tone” is enough to warrant a “partly false” label on Facebook.
Now that we've discussed the fact check errors for the 2 videos, here are the CORE issues of the Lawsuit:
72. This defense highlights a central problem with Defendants’ labelling system: since “missing context” is a description that could theoretically be applied to any content –Defendants use the label to condemn any content that expresses an opinion with which Defendants disagree, under the pretext of a “fact-check.”
SOURCE 1, pages 12 - 13
In simple terms, “missing context” is a very vague label that could hypothetically be used on any post, and Stossel argues that FB inappropriately uses this label to silence opinions that they don’t like.
So why does any of this matter?
Why does Stossel care so much about this “missing context” label, to the point of actually suing Facebook over it?
He says that the misleading label harms his reputation and his viewership, thus his capacity to generate income from his content.
Because of the “missing context” label, Facebook told Stossel that the “content is being seen by few people”
SOURCE 4, Time Stamp 00:33;
“The False Attribution tends directly to injure Stossel in his profession and occupation, and exposed him to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and/or shame, and discouraged others from associating or dealing with him. The False Attribution has led Stossel’s viewers to question his credibility, and by natural consequence, caused actual damage to Stossel, in the form of reduced distribution of his reporting, reduced viewership, and reduced profits from advertising revenue from viewership. In addition, the False Attribution has caused Stossel irreparable reputational harm, which is ongoing.”
To sum that up, Facebook’s false labels made him lose money, made people think he’s less credible, and even caused some people to stop associating with him. What’s Facebook’s response to this?
"You can’t sue me for defamation, my fact check labels are just opinions!" - FB
"The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion."
SOURCE 11, page 10 of 32.
Facebook adds that their fact check labels cannot be verified.
Specifically, they said:
It is necessarily a judgment call, one that is “not capable of verification or refutation by means of objective proof.”
SOURCE 11, page 24 of 32.
Why would Facebook openly admit that their fact labels are opinions?
Wouldn’t that hurt the credibility of their “fact checks?”
Here’s the thing about Defamation Law.
It refers to false statements about a person, *communicated as fact*.
And that’s the key here. "Communicated as fact". Meaning, stated as though it's actually true.
If Facebook said it’s A FACT that a video is partly false, and it's not false at all, then that’s defamation.
So Facebook is trying to protect itself by saying:
"Whaaaat? I never said it’s a FACT that your video was partly false or missing context. It’s just my OPINION that your video is partly false."
The key here guys is that FACT CHECK LABELS ARE NOT FACTS.
Facebook admitted this. If there’s ANYTHING to take away from this blog, that’s it.
So next time you scroll through your Facebook feed and you see a post with a fact check on it, the fact check is not necessarily true.
If Facebook says a claim is false, it's just their OPINION that its false.
There’s no factual basis for their labels, so I wouldn’t count on Facebook to separate fact from fiction.
Hey, speaking of Facebook’s opinion labels, I’ve also been attacked by Facebook! I had a Facebook page for Just Facts with Kat", and on VALENTINES DAY of 2022, Facebook permanently removed my page.
HOW ROMANTIC.
FB also told me that I’m NOT allowed to appeal the decision.
That’s the strangest part to me. I’m not allowed to appeal this decision??
What heinous FB crime did I commit to not even get a CHANCE at an appeal process, like they would give just about anyone else?! It could be because some of my videos were flagged by FB as “misinformation”, and I will tell you right now that I NEVER share misinformation on my channel.
None of the content I share is partly or fully false, and I cite ALL my sources for the facts I share.
I don’t even share my opinions on my channel! It’s Called Just FACTS, not just opinions, unlike Facebooks “fact checks”, which are literally opinions.
Don’t take my word for it. Watch my videos or check out my other blogs. Just like this one, the sources are cited below. Check out the sources that I provide for you guys and verify for yourselves that I really only share facts.
That said, Facebook censors FACTS. Facebook censors REAL INFORMATION. Thus, Facebook censors TRUTH. And that’s not my opinion! That’s the truth!
I’ve also been censored on Twitter, and recently Instagram has been flagging my posts, so I’m not sure how much longer I’ll be there either.
Feel free to Check it out my Instagram page while it’s still there. @justfactswithkat
That said, I need help guys. I believe that this channel shares valuable information, and it's SO FRUSTRATING to not be able to share it on some of the biggest online platforms.
I’m at a loss of how to deal with the censorship, quite frankly, and my question for you all is “HOW DO I SHARE THIS INFORMATION IF BIG TECH KEEPS CENSORING ME?”
I am open to any and all suggestions, so if you could please please please share any advice, I would highly appreciate it.
Also, I'm adding a donation button to the website soon so that I can hire some helping hands and deliver content more rapidly.
I’m doing everything by myself guys, and I’m not getting paid for this!
I’m just really passionate about informing others, and I would LOVE to share content more often, but I need help to do so, and no one’s going to help me for free.
Oh, I'll be taking donations in cryptocurrency as well 😊
That wraps up the blog, what are your thoughts?
Do you still trust Facebook fact checks, knowing now that they’re opinions?
Are you a fan of the current “fact check” system? Why or why not?
And lastly, why do you think I’ve been censored, and others like me that just share facts?
Drop your thoughts in the comment section below, and as always, debate and discuss RESPECTFULLY.
SOURCES: SOURCE 1: Court Documents stossel.pdf (documentcloud.org)
SOURCE 2: Fire Video Government Fueled Fires - YouTube
SOURCE 3: List of Facebook Fact Checkers A Map of Meta's Global Third-Party Fact-Checking Partners (facebook.com)
SOURCE 4: Stossel complains about FB Censorship The New Censors - YouTube
SOURCE 5: Fire Video – FACT CHECK ( by Climate Feedback ) Climate change, forest management and several other causes contribute to wildfire severity and total area burned in the western United States – Climate Feedback
SOURCE 6: Climate Feedback Responds to Stossel's Complaint. Responding to Stossel TV video on our rating process – Climate Feedback
SOURCE 7: Alarmism Video Are We Doomed? - YouTube
SOURCE 8: Alarmism Video - FACT CHECK ( by Climate Feedback ) Video promoted by John Stossel for Earth Day relies on incorrect and misleading claims about climate change – Climate Feedback SOURCE 9: Stossel’s Fact check of the “fact check” for the Alarmism Video. Climate Feedback's Misleading Claims - Stossel TV (johnstossel.com)
SOURCE 10: Stossel complains about FB Censorship of Alarmism Video. The Climate Censors - YouTube
SOURCE 11: Facebook’s Defense: the “fact check” Labels are OPINIONS. Stossel v. Facebook Inc. et al, 5:21-cv-07385, No. 27 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 30, 2021) (docketalarm.com)
Commentaires