The way to evaluate a fact checker isn't via an ideology measurement, it's via an examination of their work.
This bias thing feels like a dangerous precedent. I get not wanting kooks to exert strong cultural pressure, but if we start locking people out of various parts of society because of their beliefs, that sounds like the definition of illiberalism to me.
> The way to evaluate a fact checker isn't via an ideology measurement, it's via an examination of their work.
We have a 6-3 Supreme Court. Do you think there's no conservative bias in their work?
> This bias thing feels like a dangerous precedent. I get not wanting kooks to exert strong cultural pressure, but if we start locking people out of various parts of society because of their beliefs, that sounds like the definition of illiberalism to me.
It's not about locking people out, but ensuring that the people who have power are ideologically representative of the people they have power over.
Saying you can have apolitical "fact checking" is like saying judges just "call balls and strikes based on what the law says." In many cases both statements are actually true. But in practice, in many important cases, ideology and politics is inextricable from the job.
FactCheck.org doesn't exactly stick to verifying the number of carbon atoms in Butane. Their fact checks regularly, for example, parse through a politician's words to make inferences about what they meant or may not have meant. There's a lot of subjectivity wrapped up in that sort of analysis.
Whenever you give someone power and discretion, their "work" will be influenced by their ideology. I'm not talking about transparent favoritism, but differences in world view, values, and priorities. And it drives people nuts when people who don't share their values exercise power over them. This is true of everyone--from people who grow up in conservative little towns and escape to the big city as soon as they can to distinct ethnic groups who declare independence for their own patch of land. "Who" the decision makers are matters just as much if not more than what decisions they make.
> We have a 6-3 Supreme Court. Do you think there's no conservative bias in their work?
Based on their rulings (their work), of course. But I would never presume to predict their work based on their ethnic background, their political contributions, the schools they went to, their religion, the kinds of websites they visit or music they listen to, etc.
> It's not about locking people out, but ensuring that the people who have power are ideologically representative of the people they have power over.
That's just a long-winded way of saying you're locking people out, based on their ideology. This is the kind of stuff that lets people argue that Catholics or Jews shouldn't be president.
> Saying you can have apolitical "fact checking" is like saying judges just "call balls and strikes based on what the law says."
I'm not saying this. I think the "balls and strikes" Roberts quote is 100% horseshit, whether it's applied to SCOTUS or grading student essays.
What I am saying is (within reason) we shouldn't let someone's ideology prejudice us against them. If you're a conservative I won't be prejudiced against you. If you're a flat-earther I will. This seems fair.
> There's a lot of subjectivity wrapped up in that sort of analysis.
I think there's a lot of middle ground between "number of carbon atoms in Butane" and epistemological free-for-all. I went to factcheck.org and opened up the 1st carousel article I saw [0]. It seems fine.
> Whenever you give someone power and discretion, their "work" will be influenced by their ideology.
Of course people are made up of their backgrounds and experiences (Justice Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment comes to mind). Why don't we want that? How could we ever not have that?
> And it drives people nuts when people who don't share their values exercise power over them.
I don't think the ideology matters more than the policies and actions. I don't care what Biden's ideology is, he hasn't canceled student debt yet, and I think that's real dumb. I don't care what Trump's ideology was, he sent billions of dollars in aid to Americans who need it, and I think that was great.
---
Zooming out a little, maybe you would agree with me when I say that the rise of fact checking is a symptom of decaying discourse. I think people are so used to the other side acting in bad faith that they think they need refs, and then working the refs starts to be part of the game, then you start questioning the motives and ideologies of the refs, blah blah blah.
I think we can change this! I think we just need to be a little more earnest with each other and be more willing to acknowledge when we're wrong. Truth is huge and humans are small. The most we can hope for is to experience a little more of it by working together.
This bias thing feels like a dangerous precedent. I get not wanting kooks to exert strong cultural pressure, but if we start locking people out of various parts of society because of their beliefs, that sounds like the definition of illiberalism to me.