A rising star.

[quintessentone]

Define "fact checking" and who gets to censor who when it comes to presenting those "facts". According to some, only their version of the truth is worth listening to.

As I stated previously, specifically referring to Facebook's removal of fact-checking, both sides of the political/science/whatever subject matter should be fact-checked first by the poster, provide a source, then the owners/moderators need to determine what is and what isn't to be accepted as fact on their site, then act accordingly to develop their T&C.

Having no fact-checking is simply opinion and closed-minded belief systems on show and I don't consider that debate. To me it's either misinformation or disinformation depending on the lack of research with sources, problematic fact-checking, or one's agenda, or ego (just needing to be right).

At the very least, a poster should provide a source for their stance so others can at the very least see if their source has an agenda that leans to one side or the other.