Regardless of what you think about this step I find it disconcerting that we can now disagree on facts.
For example:
- whether crime is up or down
- whether the earth is warming or not
- how many people live in poverty
- what the rate of inflation is
- how much social security or healthcare costs
- etc
These are all verifiable, measurable facts, and yet, we somehow manage to disagree.
We always used to disagree and that is healthy, we avoid missing something. But in the past we could agree on some basic facts and then have a discussion.
Now we just end a discussion with an easy: "Your facts are wrong." And that leads to an total inability of having any discussion at all.
Fact checking is not censorship. Imagine math if we'd question the basic axioms.
For example:
- whether crime is up or down
- whether the earth is warming or not
- how many people live in poverty
- what the rate of inflation is
- how much social security or healthcare costs
- etc
These are all verifiable, measurable facts, and yet, we somehow manage to disagree.
We always used to disagree and that is healthy, we avoid missing something. But in the past we could agree on some basic facts and then have a discussion. Now we just end a discussion with an easy: "Your facts are wrong." And that leads to an total inability of having any discussion at all.
Fact checking is not censorship. Imagine math if we'd question the basic axioms.