We live in a fact-checkers’ dictatorship – commentary

By Dénes Albert
5 Min Read

The Orwellian thought police have become a reality and are breathing down our necks. In newspeak, “they” are independent fact-checkers. The newly appointed censors of Facebook, a social media platform that defines and envelops our virtual life, would in principle be tasked with filtering out fake news — the key words being “in principle”.

They claim that all this is for our protection, but practice does not prove it. It is only according to them that it is objective and lawful to restrict, prohibit, or make invisible who, what, when, and why they please, be it the local grocer or the President of the United States himself.

“But this is equality!” they shout in the name of liberal progress. Of course, we know what equality is. It’s like their vision of “independence”, which is just power and office bought with hard cash.

For them, equality means punishing everyone equally, if their interests dictate it. And the appearance of independence is no longer required. Just check the internet: you don’t have to search too long to find out who is funding censorship.

A fact-checker has now also been appointed from Hungary. What a coincidence, we might say with some irony, that the so-called independent fact-checker is none other than an opposition journalist. Ideologically, it also fits into the picture, as it depends on people and organizations funded by Soros money around the world. In fact, 18 out of 20 of the Facebook fact-checkers operating in Central and Eastern Europe have ties to George Soros.

It is the spiritual equivalent of dropping a weapon of mass destruction on all of humanity decorated with a smiley face.

These are facts. Anyone can investigate by themselves, without the unsolicited interference of paid inspectors.

Of course, we don’t have complete information about the true operation of the algorithm, but we have good reason to think that they can use quite amazing methods to determine who or what they want to put at an advantage or disadvantage, and how.

One general proof of this is the daunting fact that social media sees it as the most natural move in the world to have a progressive, truly pseudo-liberal approach adopted by everyone — at least if you want to become a user or want to stay that way.

It is a dictatorship of tolerance, plain and simple. This is why the normal, the natural, and the accepted by the majority of people is not supported by them, but rather is tolerated, forbidden, or worst of all, cunningly silenced. In contrast, what is progressive, even if obscene, is invulnerable. It is the Orwellian embodiment of the double standard, which cannot be disguised by the hallucinatory “everyone is equal” lie.

It is the spiritual equivalent of dropping a weapon of mass destruction on all of humanity decorated with a smiley face.

For my political opinion, Facebook once suspended me when I raised my voice against the commercial use of one of the symbols of totalitarian dictatorship. I claimed that the Soviet red star offended the victims of the communist dictatorship, that it was not worthy of the Hungarian nation, which has suffered a great deal under this symbol.

But I’m not alone with that. Since then, it has been an almost common phenomenon to restrict conservative users for longer or shorter periods of time because of their otherwise legitimate and acceptable views. The whole process is authoritarian. The trolls report anonymously, the case is decided by the fact-checkers in the court that is adjudicating the case. And the punishment is a ban. Anyone who has already been banned knows that, almost without exception, these are arbitrary, unfounded decisions. The left is good, the right is bad. It’s as simple as it gets.

In spite of our democratically accepted legal system, which guarantees freedom of expression, social media nevertheless acts arbitrarily if what we say is not exactly what the liberal mainstream accepts.

Share This Article