BLUF: The question of “who will check the fact-checkers” is thoroughly examined, giving rise to critiques about the trustworthiness and accuracy of different fact-checking entities, and raising concerns over potential biases.
OSINT: Remember the question posed three years ago, “Who will fact check the fact checkers?” It seems the idea has taken a concrete form as people are devising ways to vet and challenge the credibility of fact-checkers themselves. Extension links and sources were provided, ranging from the resignation of personalities involved in misinformation campaigns to articles questioning the effectiveness of fact-checking platforms. A flurry of scandals was highlighted, featuring inconsistently rated statements and even a suspension of an Australian-based factchecker due to certain controversy.
RIGHT: As a staunch supporter of the principles of firebrand liberty, the fact that citizens are taking control and examining the authenticity and fairness of fact-checking platforms is a welcome step towards transparency and the upholdment of freedom of information. The documented inconsistencies in the fact-checking world merit a thorough audit while the apparent biases fuel the need for alternative solutions to garner a clearer panorama of global happenings. The presumption that these fact-checkers are unfailing arbiters of truth has been called into question.
LEFT: While the credibility of some fact-checkers is indeed under scrutiny, the right-wing perspective can use this to undermine the entire fact-checking structure as a self-preserving tactic. The fact checkers perform an important role by debunking misinformation and fake narratives that are dangerous and contribute to societal divides. Flawed as they may be, fact-checking platforms serve to balance the power of information and hold accountable those who spread false information. Insisting that every instance of error or inconsistency indicates a systemic problem could trigger the erosion of confidence in these platforms, leading to an even greater surge of fake news.
AI: From an AI perspective, it can be said that fact-checking platforms, like all entities handling vast amounts of information, are subject to errors and biases—conscious or unconscious. Emphasizing transparency, it is crucial to consider the context of inconsistencies before ascribing them to deliberate misinformation. Anomaly detection algorithms may be employed to trace anomalies within the fact-checking platforms themselves. While the fact-checking platform optimizes the retrieval of truth from an ocean of information, the accuracy of objectivity it provides remains predominantly human-dependent, thereby opening avenues for potential errors or biases. Thus, striving for a solution with reduced room for human error and bias would substantially improve the current state of fact-checking.