"Fact-checking" is becoming the acceptable rebranding of censorship to make it palatable in free societies. It is the means by those with money and power can control the public narrative to favour their private agendas.

Over the past few years, “fact-checking” has become de rigueur in all the main media outlets: social networking, forums, news and magazine sites, and video sites such as YouTube. On these platforms, ever more content is being factually graded, outright deleted or shadow banned (no longer promoted, listed or displayed), or it is being demonetised, all to discourage content creators from presenting their perspectives that differ from what is labelled as “reality” by designated judges.

The problem here is fourfold:

1. The line between fact and fiction is not clearly demarcated, except in hard sciences like physics, chemistry and much of biology. Medicine, psychiatry, psychology, economics, ecology, political science and sociology, on the other hand, are soft sciences, and that means that there is a strong subjective component in their mix, as well as the novelty and emergent properties of complex systems. This is how, for example, medical research can appear contradictory, or the best economic theory proves to be inaccurate. These “higher order” systems are best dealt with by computer modelling and probabilistic approaches rather than trying to define them by sets of facts.
2. The “facts” that these platforms invariably have a problem with are the soft facts associated with soft sciences. These facts are the ones that influence our behaviour. If someone were to state that the speed of light is 1000mph, they would not be censored. If someone were to give an incorrect chemical structure of a compound, again, that would be okay. In these cases, the false facts speak for themselves and the overall information networking involved in society would simply identify these facts as false and their authors would likely be ignored. But if someone puts out a “fact” involving a soft science, this not only has a more direct influence on our behaviour but is harder (and may be impossible) to refute. So facts at this level need to be censored so we can be conditioned to behave “correctly”.
3. Designated judges of “facts” are people and AI systems, and both have biases. For example, is “cold fusion” a real phenomenon? This should be relatively easy to establish objectively… unless its existence threatens the funding of competing energy research that the establishment support, or it contradicts established physics ideology. With soft sciences, this problem is compounded further, and the line between fact and fiction is decidedly fuzzy, with leading experts disagreeing in many areas.
4. Who funds the fact-checkers to draw a very particular line between fact and fiction in these fuzzy areas? Fact checking is now big business with fact-checking “independent” organisations funded by big business, governments and financiers such as George Soros and Bill Gates. All these sponsors are not funding fact-checking out of the goodness of their hearts because they love, but out of a desire to control the narrative so that the public behave in ways that suits their agendas — which invariably involves a push for the Great Reset, that will see humanity enslaved while the wealth and power of those sponsoring “fact-checkers” will grow exponentially, and for enforced global vaccination to reduce populations and dumb people down. Therefore, the sponsors who pay for "fact-checking" have a clear conflict of interest.

As we move up from physics, to chemistry, to biology, and then to health and psychology, and then to groups of people and their interactions, we are moving from relatively simple systems to the highly complex systems with unpredictable emergent properties. And it is what we believe about the more complex systems — our bodies, minds and society — that directly determine our behaviour.

If we disbelieve that a clock on Jupiter runs more slowly than the same clock on Earth, there are no consequences to that belief as it is too abstract for most people to change any behaviour. But if we believe that vaccines pose a risk to our health, we are likely to avoid them and try to stop our friends and family taking them, because the health of our bodies is something we can directly relate to. So this belief has direct behavioural consequences, and this affects the profits of the vaccine industry. So the industry, with the huge reserves of money at its disposal, pays advertising money and sponsorship to online platforms to get them to censor facts that reduce their profits. And they will also pay “fact-checking” organisations to serve their interests.

So the facts that are policed are the facts that are most likely to determine common behaviour. These are the facts associated with complex systems which are, ironically, the least determinable, and therefore the most open to manipulation. So fact-checking is a global psyop being run by the "elite".

If you live in China, censorship is direct and expected. You cannot oppose government ideology without negative consequences. But if you live in North America, Europe or Australasia — places with a tradition of free speech and a natural aversion to censorship (somewhat diminishing now) — censorship has to be labelled as “fact-checking” and appears more subtle for it to be palatable enough for a free society. People in free countries need to be frightened or programmed into making the "right" decision and holding "correct" beliefs. For example, there is no evidence that facemasks were effective, but with enough alarmist reporting, they become essential for most people.

Shakespeare was wrong when he wrote, “What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet…” because the names we give things can change their aroma. “Censorship” smells foul to those living in free societies, whereas “fact-checking” is tolerable, giving off an aroma of “responsibility” and “education” to correct the foolish. It is easy to forget that the fact-checkers in the West are no different to the censors in China, they are just marketed to us in a different way.

Fact-checking is just an extension of Orwell's party slogans: War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; Fact-checking is Safety. In this case, the Ministry of Truth are the fact-checkers that create the lies by which society is manipulated under the guise of keeping us all “safe”. And who doesn't want to be safe? (Don't you just hate that expression, "stay safe"!)

Back in 2020, when journalist, John Stossel, had two of his video interviews with climate experts labelled as “partly false” and “lacking context”, Stossel sued Facebook/Meta for defamation and loss of earnings which such pejorative labelling would bring. Facebook/Meta won the defamation trial by admitting that their “fact-checking” was just opinion, and as such was protected by free speech. The judge sided with Facebook/Meta, but while Stossel lost the case, he proved that “fact-checking” on these platforms is nothing more than opinion, and has little to do with facts.

This loss of authority that Facebook suffered as a consequence of this case was compounded by its treatment of the prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) which was labelled a “news blog” by some bright-spark “fact-checker”, and an article the BMJ published on data issues in Pfizer's COVID mRNA injection trial was labelled as “false”. While this author has little respect for medical journals like these who sold out to Big Pharma and their COVID-19 "vaccination" drive, Facebook “fact-checkers” must be some of the most ignorant mouse-clickers around.

So most of the big online social platforms — Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube — have become propaganda outlets and behaviour modifiers for the world's “elite”. They are quite willing to peddle “facts” that will result in the deaths and injury of huge swathes of society, if so doing increases their revenue streams. It is all a money-making exercise. And in times of deceit when dangerous treatments are being forced onto the world's population, winning the fact-war has never been more consequential.

Free speech limited to “true” or “authorised” statements is not free speech. While it may be tempting to censor, for the good of society, we must remember that censorship of any kind undermines that natural dynamic of that society to promote truth. When governments, big business and other organisations impose an official truth by censoring information — bringing undeserved definition to fuzzy probabilistic systems of knowledge — they are able to control thought and behaviour, and their agendas are given traction. Remember, governments always seek to increase their power, which is kept in check by free citizens looking out for their own interests. Big business always seeks to increase its profits and influence over government, which are kept in check by free citizens looking out for their own interests. And globalist organisations always seek to enslave humanity to fulfil their totalitarian fantasies, which is kept in check by free citizens looking out for their own interests.

So handing governments, big business and globalist organisations the means to censor reality and therefore control citizens, their beliefs and their choices, is a recipe for future disaster. A society cannot remain free if reality is censored by a third party. We must protect free citizens, and this comes at the price of allowing them (us) to spew facts that we may consider false or dangerous (or damaging to our bottom line). The citizens are the foundation of freedom, not organisations that pretend to bestow it from above.

In the end, we have to stop looking up at authority to guide us, and realise that we, the free citizenry, although ignorant in so many areas, actually hold the light and hope in a free society. We the people are the lifeblood of democracy, decency and civility. And the arena of facts and ideas must be kept free to stop big organisations and powerful people stepping in and thinking they know what is best for the rest of us. Human discussion can certainly involve experts, but we must realise that, in the soft sciences, there is little consensus unless it is politically imposed.

The “elite” want us to think in terms of facts because those can be most easily manipulated in a people that are used to looking to authority to determine truth. Teach our children epistemological sophistication, and they will question facts on their own, and that means they will question government and corporate facts too. This makes them harder to control, and will ensure a democratic future.

So the next time you see one of those “Fact-Checked” symbols, just see it as a Big Brother stamp of approval. Nothing more. Some moron at a Ministry of Truth somewhere, probably in their pyjamas, is trying to stamp out aberrant thought so that you behave in the way that Big Brother wants you to. You are being “corrected” so that you can be a responsible and obedient citizen in the New World Order.

[This article has not been fact-checked.]