I would expect nothing less.
And the rest of you are all about the messenger rather than the message.
Well when the messenger is a proven liar, it's hard to trust them. But if the message is carried by other messengers, then let's see it. I mean, the message might become believable if it is substantiated by other, more reputable sources. Got any of those, or is a conspiracy rag the only place that you can get this information?
But let's look at the message, because the message is retarded and based on nothing but supposition with zero evidence or fact behind it.
The IFCN has come up with 5 guidelines for news organizations in order to ensure some amount of journalistic integrity. Those guidelines are:
1. A COMMITMENT TO NONPARTISANSHIP AND FAIRNESS
We fact-check claims using the same standard for every fact check. We do not concentrate our fact-checking on any one side. We follow the same process for every fact check and let the evidence dictate our conclusions. We do not advocate or take policy positions on the issues we fact-check.
2. A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF SOURCES
We want our readers to be able to verify our findings themselves. We provide all sources in enough detail that readers can replicate our work, except in cases where a source’s personal security could be compromised. In such cases, we provide as much detail as possible.
3. A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF FUNDING & ORGANIZATION
We are transparent about our funding sources. If we accept funding from other organizations, we ensure that funders have no influence over the conclusions we reach in our reports. We detail the professional background of all key figures in our organization and explain our organizational structure and legal status. We clearly indicate a way for readers to communicate with us.
4. A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF METHODOLOGY
We explain the methodology we use to select, research, write, edit, publish and correct our fact checks. We encourage readers to send us claims to fact-check and are transparent on why and how we fact-check.
5. A COMMITMENT TO OPEN AND HONEST CORRECTIONS
We publish our corrections policy and follow it scrupulously. We correct clearly and transparently in line with our corrections policy, seeking so far as possible to ensure that readers see the corrected version.
So...what's wrong with this? Are these guidelines unreasonable? Biased? Partisan? They seem fairly OK to me.
So Facebook is going to work with...whom? Did you read the article?
“third-party fact checking organizations” that are signatories to the code of principles.
So Facebook is going to work, not with the IFCN directly, but with other groups which have agreed to abide by those 5 guidelines. What's wrong with that? Is that biased? Is that partisan?
Now we have that George Soros has contributed to the IFCN. What of it? He's a liberal, he funds other things, blah blah blah. OK. But what about here? Have those 5 principals changed? Has the fact that Facebook is working with third party organizations changed? Are those third party organizations also funded by Soros and if so, does that have an effect?
What is the significance of Soros here? A rich jerk who throws his money around, OK fine. But how is that affecting things here?
You have no evidence that anything is affected. You've just reached for some straws. Oh Facebook is going to work with third party organizations who agree to be Committed to nonpartisanship and fairness, transparency of sources, transparency of funding & organization, transparency of methodology, and open & honest corrections. But you're grasping at Soros and throwing him into the mix as if the mere mention of his name means that none of this commitment is happening. Do you have proof that those principles are not being followed? No you don't. This is mindless accusation, baseless supposition, blind partisan attacking.
So let's forget that Breitbart is a worthless, partisan, pile of hot steaming **** for a second and look at the "message". The "message" is full of **** as well. Come back when you have better sources and proof.