How are they in this case? Seems like a straightforward fact based claim. The one side claimed there is never a medical reason for terminating a pregnancy and the fact check organization listed a series of such medical condition such.

What's stranger is that the person claiming there's no medical reason for termination then goes on to list an acceptable medical reason for termination (ectopic pregnancy).

Did you read the article? The fact check has nothing to do with being a morality arbiter. They simply provided the facts as they pertain to the claims. It's up to the viewer to take that information and process how they feel about it from there.

How many videos from the other side do they 'FACT CHECK' in big bold letters? Its not the factchecking in and of itself thats the issue.

Someone else in a separate comment chain in this thread posited the same point (that fact checks happen more often for right-leaning videos than for left-leaning videos). I asked for data to support that assertion but wasn't provided any. Do you have data to support what you are inferring?

The separation of church and state has been doing wonders, so far. \s

Why the sarcasm? Are people being defenestrated in Prague and I didn't notice?

Religious conflict has been on a huge downswing for like 300 years.

If I had to make a guess the users comment aims at the American system where a privatisation of religion in combination with unrestricted free religious speech has mostly let to radicalisation.

The alternative would be models like the UK, Germany or Denmark, where although churches have state representation, the reverse is also true and the state has effectively securalised and reigned religious institutions in.

if you want a social network where you can say whatever you want without interference go use gab or 4chan. it's facebook's choice whether or not they want to do this.

edit: "whatever you want" supposed to be figure of speech, seemingly this must be pointed out.

You mean 8chan? I don't know about gab but you can not say whatever you want on 4chan...

8chan was still down since Cloudfare cancelled it last I checked. “Big tech”s reach extends beyond the mega platforms onto smaller independent sites too.

Few sites are totally unmoderated either, I doubt gab is totally unmoderated either. They all take down spam, illegal stuff, and harassing/abusive people afaik. If not I dont see how their communities would last very long.

Gab is a far right platform that moderates away anything left of Rush Limbaugh. They were upset that Reddit banned some really terrible and often times illegal acts from their platform. So they moved to their own platform. Their community is very open to fringe talk, hate speech as a form of free speech, and doxxing. A link for reference but far from the only instance.

https://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-sentence-far-extremist-...

> but you can not say whatever you want on 4chan

Since when? Probably depends on which board you're talking about I guess.

4chan (and 8chan) have a Global Rule #1 which says you can't post anything which violates U.S. or local laws. Also trolling and racism are quarantined to /b/

I doubt there are any "anything goes" social networks in existence.

I don't know why that expression is being taken literally. Obviously if you make terroristic threats to the US government you're going to be in trouble no matter where you post. Obviously the context is given by the original submission.

The point is that the attitude I was responding to is extremely entitled. You're not entitled to use Facebook. You're not entitled to post about abortion without a fact check from Facebook, that is up to them. If you don't like it, leave Facebook.

I'm tired of the public square narrative, as if Facebook is the only forum for discussion on the Internet. If Facebook blocks my speech, I can talk about it on Twitter, or Hacker News, or Gab or chan boards (using these as an example), or my own website, or any other number of places for discussion.

Facebook is a private company.

Facebook may be a private company but it doesn't absolve them from criticism due to the size of their userbase and influence on society. Antitrust law may also apply since they control Instagram and Whatsapp as well.

Sure, you can post on your website (that nobody would discover), or Gab (which is blocked in Apple and Android stores), or 8chan (which is down)...but for better or worse people still use Facebook so people still complain about it.

Criticism is fine, nobody has to be happy with the decisions Facebook makes, and are welcome to loudly and aggressively voice their opinions.

Suggesting legal measures against Facebook, "perhaps we need not only a separation of church and state, but also of tech and state", is entirely different and completely unwarranted on the basis of them "regulating (or interfering with) speech" as seen in the submission.

I'm not a user of Gab and unfamiliar with their apps, but I assume it can be accessed through a standard web browser (Safari, Google Chrome).