The trouble is the very first time this happens, they already manage to mess it up. The fact checked article contained errors too. I also think it's truly stupid to use a partisan news organisation as a fact checker. You really can't claim any impartiality. In that case you aren't a fact checker, just showing the other side of the argument. But then don't call it facts.

But he didn't kill her

It's exactly the opposite. People are going to cringe at their hamfisted and obviously partisan interventions and their transparently hypocritical justifications for them. I don't agree with the opposing side politically but this is a losing move. The fact that their "head of site integrity" is an extreme partisan is icing on the cake. I'm surprised to say this, as someone who despises Facebook, but Zuckerberg seems to be playing this smarter, trying desperately to appease both sides. It reminds me of a guy standing with a foot on each of two diverging trains, but at least he isn't shooting himself in the foot.

I'm sorry, I fail to see how having a more informed electorate is a partisan issue or a "losing move". That concept implies that the party this is "against" is only successful when the voters aren't well informed. The only side twitter is against is an intentionally misinformed userbase.

Twitter had already been fact-checking misinformation about covid-19 for harm reduction: https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/11/21254733/twitter-covid-19...

The political leaning of the head of site integrity is irrelevant, his job is a branch off of infosec and can be simplified to combating spam. If one person was using 10 accounts to hype up a fake cryptocurrency, the head of site integrity would be in charge of taking action to fight that. This case happens to be harm reduction in politics and not finance or health. Unfortunately there has been somewhat of a harassment campaign against the head of site integrity because people continue to misunderstand his role.

Facebook is currently synonymous with fake news. I think that in the long term, people will stop trust it completely, similar to how they've learn to avoid clickbait titles on articles.

I have to disagree with you about Facebook/Twitter comparison. To me it looks like Facebook is obliviously annoying everyone at the same time. Twitter doesn’t look great but does at least seem to be aware of this and trying to improve.

It sounds like you're defining anybody who is explicitly liberal or conservative as partisan, which is deeply ironic.

Maybe I used that word wrong. I just meant someone who's strongly on one political side. Those things mostly go together in a two-party system though.

Why is disagreeing with a politician a partisan?

The US has no hope of recovering from this circus show if you can't mentally separate people from parties. Trump being a dangerous idiot does not mean all Republicans are, nor does it mean all Dems are great. There are good people on all sides but this reductionism makes it impossible to see that.