So, about this @weeklystandard fact-checker / @thinkprogress dispute over the former's flagging of an article by the latter as "false news" on the Facebook dashboard. (Takes a deep breath) thinkprogress.org/facebook-weekl… 
TWS Fact-Checker @HolmesLybrand flagged the article on FB because of its headline which reads "Brett Kavanaugh said he would kill Roe v. Wade last week" He provided this fact check as evidence. weeklystandard.com/holmes-lybrand…
I am not a legal expert so I don't know whether Kavanaugh's record suggests that he favors overturning Roe v Wade or whether the "Glucksberg test" Kavanaugh mentioned in testimony strongly implies that he would — as TP's analysis goes. He might well do.
Think Progress is understandably peeved. There's a case to be made that Facebook's tool should not be used to downrank analysis. There's also a case to be made that saying Kavanaugh "said" something can be understood as meaning that he literally said it. Which Kavanaugh did not
The real problem is not "Is Facebook censoring progressives" but "Should Facebook ask fact-checking partners to flag stories based on headlines?" and "How Literally?" We know a lot of fakes travel off of a headline alone. Not acting on those opens a pretty big loophole.
I don't think using false claims helps. This is inaccurate. I've told Judd twice already in the past. TWS Fact-Checker is @factchecknet-verified and here's their file ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/application/pu…
The attack on TWS Fact Checker blends past work by the parent organization with @HolmesLybrand's current fact-checking work. I accept that this boundary is artificial and a limitation of the @factchecknet code of principles process.
At the same time, I haven't seen anyone actually evaluate @HolmesLybrand's record of fact checks on the basis of his fact checks alone rather than the work he did not write. weeklystandard.com/author/holmes-…
Would I have flagged this article? No. Have other articles been flagged on the basis of misleading headlines alone? Yes. FB's process is full of flaws and deserves a more open and public methodology as well as a ledger of all flagged stories. I've been asking for this from Day 1
But it seems to me that we're stuck in a lethal loop where instead of improving a platform through data-based accountability and measured interactions we are making the conversation around Facebook's actions to fight misinformation a 100% U.S.-centric partisan battle.
Most days, I'm a precariously balanced mix of optimism and skepticism. Today I'm enormously disheartened. I don't know that we can get beyond shouting at each other about other things and our information ecosystem out of this hole.
In case you were wondering what the publishers of "Investigators: Anthony Bourdain was killed by Clinton operatives" think about this affair
