[Ed. – I know, hilarious, right? Here’s the deal. I think ThinkProgress is factually wrong on this matter — but I also think the post should not have been censored. It’s legitimately a complex form of reasoning to come to a conclusion either way (“false” or “true”) about the article at issue. We’re not talking about a 2+2=4 type of “fact” situation here. It doesn’t help conservatives to have the Weekly Standard participating in this highly questionable Facebook experiment. Basically, the framework in which Facebook proposes to operate is that what must be labeled “true” or “false” are exactly the matters of deductive OPINION on which left and right disagree. The impact of that is usually felt in the other direction; i.e., against the right. But either way, it’s a fatal approach to intellectual liberty. Let ThinkProgress make their case. Let the reader decide.]
The Weekly Standard brought its third-party “fact-checking” power to bear against ThinkProgress on Monday, when the outlet determined a ThinkProgress story about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was “false,” a category defined by Facebook to indicate “the primary claim(s) in this content are factually inaccurate.”
The article in question, which this reporter wrote, pointed out that, when you read a statement Kavanaugh made during his confirmation hearing alongside a statement he made in a 2017, it becomes clear he is communicating that he opposes Roe v. Wade. Our article is factually accurate and The Weekly Standard’s allegation against us is wrong.