A rising star.

[quintessentone]

I'm not referring to competitive debates, people debate issue all the time without fact checking. These nonofficial debates are probably largest driving force behind shaping and molding societies since the dawn of time. I'm all for having proof that can be pointed at in public forums for all to see, but I have found that these days that even those artifacts required a debate upon there authenticity. We have a situation where the source of what we thought was the truth has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be corrupt and agenda driven. So I ask you who's facts do you deem as actual facts?

People on social/public forums don't debate, they have heated arguments, get angry because they are emotionally immature and start name calling - I see it everywhere. Depending on one's accepted belief system, if it aligns with other members and moderators who are a majority, they will shape and mold the site into a shitshow.

Facebook was looked upon as a shitshow because their fact-checking was deemed to be slanted to the left of which the moderators followed the rules. Was the fact-checking science- and non-agenda based? I don't know, I'm not really into Facebook, but from what I've seen from it's inception, it's been troubled all along.

They could have improved the existing fact-checking team with fact checkers from both sides, then they could have debated it to establish common truths, but Zuckerberg decided to abandon it to the masses.

Well to me it appears to be a social experiment under the guise of free speech, whatever that means for him.