Facebook Censors Wall Street Journal

(FreedomBeacon.com)- Facebook has made another enemy — the Wall Street Journal.

After the social media giant put a fact check on an op-ed the Journal published recently, the paper’s editorial board came out and said they’d be in favor of potentially revising the protections social media companies currently get under Section 230.

In a response to Facebook’s “phony” fact check, the WSJ editorial board wrote:

“We’ve been leery of proposals in Congress to modify Section 230 protections that shield internet platforms from liability. But social-media giants are increasingly adding phony fact checks and removing articles flagged by left-leaning users without explanation.

“In short, they are acting like publishers in vetting and stigmatizing the content of reputable publishers. The legal privileges that enable these companies to dominate public discourse need to be debated and perhaps revised.”

Marty Makary, a surgeon with John Hopkins, recently wrote an op-ed for the Journal. In it, he argued that American could potentially approach obtaining herd immunity from the coronavirus by April.

The fact checkers from Facebook didn’t like that, though. The called the article “misleading,” and said the surgeon’s argument was “unsubstantiated.”

Health Feedback, one of the organizations that serves as a fact checker for Facebook, wrote:

“Three scientists analyzed the article and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be very low.”

After that, Facebook began to limit the distribution of the op-ed from Makary so that “fewer people” were able to view the “misinformation.”

The Journal fired back. They said the op-ed by the Johns Hopkins surgeon wasn’t trying to make a “factual claim.” Instead, they said it was an analysis of evidence that’s widely available, and was used to make a projection. The editorial board wrote:

“Bu the progressive health clerisy don’t like this projection because they worry it could lead to fewer virus restrictions. The horror! Health Feedback’s fact checkers disagree with the evidence Dr. Makary cites as well as how he interprets it. Fine. Scientists disagree all the time. Much of conventional health wisdom about red meat, sodium and cardiovascular risk is still fiercely debated.”

Then, the Journal editors proceed to fact check the fact checkers at Facebook. They said the scientists at Health Feedback often “cherry-pick” the data of their own and use “arbitrary” rules for estimating herd immunity. In one case, the editors say the scientists used a “single piece of ambiguous evidence” to try to discredit Makary.

The WSJ editorial continued:

“Scientists often disagree over how to interpret evidence. Debate is how ideas are tested and arguments are refined. But Facebook’s fact-checkers are presenting their opinions as fact and seeking to silence other scientists whose views challenge their own.”

Facebook and Twitter have been taking a lot of heat in the past year for their censorship policies. Many conservative voices have said they are being silenced only because they disagree with the ultra-liberal voices at these social media giants.

Former President Donald Trump was a big advocate of revoking Section 230, as were many Republican members of Congress.

Now that Facebook has ticked off the Wall Street Journal, though, it might actually cause some action to take place.