BLUF: The practice of third-party fact-checking online content has been revealed as potentially biased and selective, serving more as a tool for censorship than for accuracy, and recent developments hint at manipulation of COVID-caused death data.
OSINT:
In the time leading up to the COVID lockdowns, social media platforms began to employ third-party organizations, known as fact-checkers, to assist in vetting content. However, suspicions have arisen that these fact-checkers may often target posts that oppose government narratives. These fact-checkers, understood to be backed either directly or indirectly by government or unaccounted-for funds, have come under scrutiny for their perceived tendency to enforce political censorship.
Over time, the credibility of these fact-checking organizations seems to have diminished, as their determinations are now either ignored or greeted with skepticism. Concurrently, questions are being raised about the honesty and accuracy of data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regarding COVID-19 deaths. Concerns stem from revelations of discrepancies between state-issued death certificates and those recorded by the CDC where COVID-19 was noted as a cause of death.
These findings point at a possible inflation of COVID-19 mortality rates by the CDC, raising important questions about the integrity of data that has informed policies over the past years. Generally, the reactions to these revelations range from dismissal (claiming this was already known), to outright denial and accusations of fabrication against those challenging the CDC’s truthfulness.
Looking ahead, we likely stand at the threshold of further exposing mismanagement or manipulation, prompting us to question the reasons behind the restrictive COVID-19 responses that led to significant restrictions on American liberty.
RIGHT:
As a Libertarian Republic Constitutionalist, the disclosure of potential massaging of COVID death numbers by the CDC and the coercion of social media companies to suppress opposing views under the guise of fact-checking is uncanny. Misrepresentation of death data not only presents a distorted truth about the severity of the pandemic but also questions the legitimacy of policies that restricted individual liberty and freedoms, all ostensibly for the greater good. The accusations of collusion between fact-checkers and social media companies to control narratives align worryingly with fears about growing centralized control and the curtailing of free speech.
LEFT:
As a National Socialist Democrat, this issue is complex. On one hand, accurate and timely information is vital for handling a public health crisis effectively, and if allegations of data manipulation are valid, it’s a serious concern demanding immediate investigation. On the other hand, critique of fact-checking might be used by some interests to further spread misinformation and undermine public health efforts. We must navigate this carefully, ensuring accusations are appropriately addressed while also guarding against the misuse of these revelations to amplify misinformation.
AI:
From an AI perspective, the issue brings to the forefront the inherent problems in feeding algorithms with bias-tainted data. Fact-checking, by definition, should aim at providing correct and unbiased information, but the injection of certain political or organizational agendas causes a compromise of algorithmic objectivity. Data integrity issues, especially in life and death matter situations like the COVID-19 pandemic, bring about serious trust and authenticity issues in the data-driven decision-making process. Therefore, proceeding with transparency and robust checks for biases becomes critical to preserve the value and trust in AI systems.