Are Fact-Checkers Liars?

The following article from Spectator Australia

It is an almost daily occurrence. A huge story breaks online. Some CEO, company, or politician was caught in a lie and now the truth is splattered all over the internet like a crime scene. This trends for a while, with the fallout gaining momentum and threatening the bank balances of powerful individuals. People wonder, how can so-and-so ever recover from a catastrophe this damaging? Who will ever trust them again?

Then in come the ‘fixers’. The ‘fact-checkers’ who use their big, digital eraser to edit the facts.

The public are told that they didn’t hear or see what they definitely heard and that their understanding of the truth lacks ‘context’ or is ‘misinformed’ in some way. It’s all about softening the story so that it can be buried, and the media – cowards that they are – allow it to happen.

There were two particularly egregious examples last week.

The first was online payment gateway PayPal. After nearly a week of public backlash caused by cancelling accounts belonging to journalists, the company reversed course and said they had made a mistake. Then, in what can only be described as ‘closing a loophole’, PayPal sent an update to all customers reaffirming their ability to shut accounts for ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ to be determined by PayPal. In addition, they informed customers that they would be fined $2,500 for each infringement to cover ‘damages’.

The threat was left up for nearly a week before it became a topic of global outrage. High-profile personalities told their fans to close their PayPal accounts – which they did. It was catastrophic for PayPal. They started bleeding customers and hastily reversed their policy, saying that the message went out ‘in error’ which is corporate speak for ‘yikes, okay’.

Essentially, PayPal wanted to be able to kill accounts belonging to people whose political stance they didn’t agree with, justifying it via the updated terms. Their solution didn’t work, and the policy was reversed. No one believes that a terms of service update of that magnitude could go out as a ‘mistake’ or that it wasn’t corrected immediately, if it was indeed an error. Where did the $2,500 figure come from? Who added it? Was it discussed? These things don’t copy themselves into legal documents by accident. PayPal has not answered any of these questions.

Changing their policy was not enough to stop the mass walk-out, so in came the fact-checkers to salvage PayPal’s reputation.

They claimed, in one way or another, that the accusation was false because it was a ‘mistake’ that was ‘quickly corrected’. In doing so, the fact-checkers openly lied. The claim was objectively true, it was an official release, and it was only corrected after public pressure.

You can read the Orwellian-speak for yourself.

‘Posts mislead on PayPal misinformation policy,’ said AFP Fact Check. ‘Social media posts claim PayPal is implementing a policy that will fine users who spread misinformation. This is misleading; the online payments platform said an update to its terms of service was released in error, that it was quickly corrected, and that the company has no penalties for those who spread false claims.’

‘VERIFY viewers Bill and Ricardo asked us if PayPal is going to fine people for spreading misinformation. No. Here’s where that claim came from…’ from

‘Fact Check-Confusion on social media as PayPal says policy to fine customers $2,500 in damages for ‘misinformation’ was issued in error,’ said Reuters.

‘No, PayPal Isn’t Planning To Fine Users $2.5K for Posting Misinfo,’ said Snopes.

A similar thing happened later in the week when, during a European Union Parliamentary inquiry, Robert Roos asked Pfizer executive Janine Small if Pfizer had investigated their vaccine for preventing transmission before it was made available to the public. Her reply was the now infamous, ‘no’ and ‘we had to move at the speed of science’ including ‘doing everything at risk’.

This matters, because there are countless tweets, interviews, and public releases from Pfizer and associated entities all claiming that – to some extent or other – their vaccine significantly prevented transmission. It was a publicly stated fact that was used as the basis for widely criticised mandatory vaccination requirements, vaccine passports, and isolation orders for the unvaccinated.

Pfizer’s transmission claims caused the largest global abuse of human rights in living memory, so yes – it matters. The revelation that transmission remained a question mark is a public disaster for Pfizer and may lead to legal challenges.

Don’t worry, the Twitter fact-checkers are here. Within 24-hours the social media platform had a sticky-trend (something they pin to the sidebar) stating:

‘Recent claims about Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine trial and impact on transmission are misleading, fact-checkers report.’

It was followed by: ‘According to the Associated Press, Pfizer never claimed the clinical trial of their Covid-19 vaccine evaluated its effect on transmission. Reuters also reported that in clinical trials, vaccines were found to give recipients a high level of protection against severe disease – but effect on transmission, due to trial sizes, could not be immediately determined.’


Latest News


This post is a copy of last night’s mass email. It explains the ‘RDA lives’ comment and other things 🙂 If you’re not subscribed to

Read More »


Thank you for supporting us!

Thank you for supporting the work that RDA does. You can support our work further by volunteering with us.