The admission came in response to litigation filed by John Stossel, who sued the Big Tech behemoth for defamation over its decision to add "fact check" labels to content he posted about climate change.
Page two of Facebook's court statement responding to Stossel's suit contains the bombshell revelation, which the company was basically forced to make in defense of itself against the allegations made.
"Beyond this threshold Section 230 problem, the complaint also fails to state a claim for defamation," it reads. "For one, Stossel fails to plead facts establishing that Meta acted with actual malice – which, as a public figure, he must."
"For another, Stossel's claims focus on the fact-check articles written by Climate Feedback, not the labels affixed through the Facebook platform. The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion."
It is this admission about "protected opinion" that proves Facebook's "fact checks" to be a deception-based censorship tactic.
"And even if Stossel could attribute Climate Feedback's separate webpages to Meta, the challenged statements on those pages are likewise neither false nor defamatory," the response goes on to state.
"Any of these failures would doom Stossel's complaint, but the combination makes any amendment futile."
Facebook says that Stossel needs to "attribute Climate Feedback's separate webpages to Meta" since the tech giant has outsources its censorship process to various third-party "fact checking" companies.
These companies, it turns out, are all far-left activist groups. Some of them are also disguised as "non-profits," though all of them push the faux global warming narrative.
According to Breitbart News, Facebook uses this corrupt system to distance itself from all responsibility concerning how "fact checks" are conducted and applied to people's social media posts.
By arguing that third parties rather than itself are making these decisions, Facebook can apparently now get away with pushing left-wing opinions as "fact" and somehow avoid violating Section 230 restrictions as outlined in the Communications Decency Act (CDA).
"However, the company still acts on those decisions by affixing labels to posts that have been 'fact checked,' and suppressing their reach on the platform," reported Newspunch.
Unless something is done to clarify the blurred line that now exists between content providing and content publishing, Big Tech platforms like Facebook will continue to get away with murder when it comes to steering the narrative and pushing an ulterior agenda.
"By calling it 'fact checking,' they are publicly advertising that their opinions are 'fact,'" wrote a commenter at Natural News. "They are trying to have it both ways."
"A judge should bar them from using the word 'fact' when giving their opinion, or at least publicly state that their 'fact checking' is opinion only. They are defrauding the public when trying to put out opinion as fact when it is not. It's like having a car dealership called 'The New Car Haven' but having all used cars, then trying to hide the fact that they are selling used cars from all the buyers."
Another responded that this has been widely known for some time now, and that Facebook's "fact checks," or opinions, have always been worthless.
"Facebook, Google, Amazon, Twitter, Instagram, and all governmental departments are funded by the central banks," wrote another at Newspunch. "And you idiots that have accounts with them run deep in retardation. No hope for you."
More related news about Facebook's fake "fact checks" can be found at Censorship.news.
Sources for this article include: