The substance has to do with how Instagram is treating this meme of Joe Biden:
There are two examples. On this one, the meme is completely censored, with a note from the “fact check” site that it is false:
In the other example, when you first go to the page, you get something of a splash screen telling you it is false, but have the opportunity to click through to see the original meme:
One interesting point to note: When you click on the “See why” button, you don’t get anything. Even after you click through and get the “See why factcheckers say this is false” message at the bottom, that link doesn’t work.
The Greenwald article does an excellent job of detailing how this specific criticism of the 1994 crime bill has been fairly standard fare within the Democratic party for some time. The idea that the criticism is “false and has no basis in fact” is, itself, false.
A few random observations:
- The libertarian in me says that Instagram (Facebook, really) is free to publish whatever they want. Caveat emptor.
- No rational observer can maintain the idea of any of these “fact check” sites are anything other than pure partisan bunkum at this point.
- One more reason that fauxmaha.com exists. I’ve come to the opinion that people who value free thought and free expression can no longer participate in good conscience on those censorious platforms.
Greenwald’s conclusion bears repeating:
This is why it has been so dangerous, so misguided, to acquiesce to a campaign that is being led by corporate media outlets to insist that these tech giants abandon a belief in a free internet and instead censor more aggressively. That a person will now be declared by Facebook’s properties to be a disseminator of disinformation for voicing long-standing and well-documented criticisms of Joe Biden’s crime record is yet another bleak glimpse of a future in which unseen tech overlords police our discourse by unilaterally arbitrating truth and falsity, decree what are permissible and impermissible ideas, and rigidly setting the boundaries of acceptable debate.