But your examples aren't 'facts', they're 'opinions'. Unless we're going to just throw away the definition of 'fact', we shouldn't be pretending that those example claims can possible be 'fact'.
> But your examples aren't 'facts', they're 'opinions'.
Exactly.
> we shouldn't be pretending that those example claims can possible be 'fact'.
We shouldn't. But "we" do all the time. Slapping API and UI with Google logo on it won't change that. But it would let people pretend that now these are "facts" - after all, the source of all knowledge in the universe, Almighty Google says right here "fact check"! How's that not a fact?!
Also, "fact checkers" are free to misinterpret the content of the article, i.e.:
"Increasing the minimum wage helps improve the economy"
* Fact check by Conservative-example:
Claim: "we should take all the money away from successful people and give it free to drug addicts and moochers"
Verdict: false
* Fact check by Progressive-example:
Claim: "we should let poor people to just die from hunger"
Verdict: false
etc. Neither of that contributes to the discussion much, in fact, it makes it harder by caricaturising positions of opposing sides and making it harder to discuss arguments on the manner, while wearing the veil of "objective fact checking". The expression "fact checking", which once meant verifying objective facts, has already been hijacked by propagandists to make their propaganda more plausibly sounding. I predict more such abuse is going to happen and the term would be further eroded until it's completely meaningless.