Fact check: You do not check facts. You only push forward your own skewed opinion if not down right lies

1. What the Accusation Actually Asserts — A Clear, Multi-Part Claim That Demands Separation of Issues

The original statement imputes three separate behaviors: systematic neglect of fact-checking, propagation of partisan or skewed viewpoints, and active lying. Treating these as distinct claims is crucial because empirical evidence treats negligence, bias, and intentional falsehood differently. Studies about platform-level amplification of falsehoods point to structural problems rather than universal bad faith by every actor. The sources provided highlight platform decisions and broader media trends rather than proving that a given speaker or organization uniformly avoids verification or intentionally deceives ^{[3] [4] [2]}.

2. Evidence That Misinformation Spreads — Platform Dynamics Create Opportunities for Error

Research documents that misinformation on social media causes real-world harms and that automated systems and chatbots can worsen false information spread, supporting the view that some actors and technologies fail at effective fact-checking ^{[1] [2]}. These studies show measurable risks: degraded public health outcomes and amplified falsehoods. However, the existence of platform vulnerabilities does not equate to universal deliberate lying by human communicators, and the literature distinguishes between algorithmic amplification, user behavior, and editorial intent ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Independent Fact-Checking and Journalism Pushback — Evidence of Active Countermeasures

Opinion pieces and editorials argue that fact-checking remains essential and that quitting independent verification is alarming, indicating active efforts within journalism to counter misinformation and build a fact-checking culture ^{[3] [4]}. These sources present a countervailing trend: professional outlets and media literacy advocates are mobilizing to raise standards and hold platforms accountable. That suggests the blanket charge of "you do not check facts" overlooks substantial institutional fact-checking infrastructure still operating across news organizations and civil society ^[4].

4. Health and Safety Stakes — Why Fact-Checking Matters, Not Merely Academic Debate

Medical and public-health voices emphasize that health misinformation leads to tangible harms, including deaths and policy distortion, underscoring why accurate verification is more than rhetorical cleanliness ^[5]. These analyses show consequences when false claims spread unchecked, which supports calls for robust verification and platform responsibility. The presence of harm does not single out any one communicator as the culprit, but it does demonstrate the societal imperative for better fact-checking practices across platforms and institutions ^[5].

5. Bias vs. Falsehood — Distinguishing Slant from Lies

Sources addressing media influence and bias demonstrate that news content can carry slant without being factually false, which complicates accusations of “pushing skewed opinion.” Tools that rate bias show variation across outlets and stories, suggesting that perceived opinionation may reflect editorial stance rather than factual inaccuracy ^{[6] [7]}. The evidence indicates that bias is measurable and contestable; however, bias alone does not prove deliberate lying, so the original statement conflates normative disagreement with provable deception ^{[6] [7]}.

6. Platform Policy Changes — Context That Can Look Like Abdication

Editorials highlight platform policy shifts, such as reducing independent fact-checking partnerships, as alarming moves that can reduce accountability and fuel perceptions of misinformation being unchecked ^{[3] [4]}. These institutional decisions create credible reasons for public frustration and for blunt accusations, but the sources show the reaction is to a structural change rather than to a singular actor’s consistent dishonesty. The observable policy choices are a meaningful part of the context that generates claims like the one under scrutiny ^[3].

7. Where the Evidence Falls Short — What the Sources Do Not Prove

None of the supplied analyses prove that any specific named individual or organization "only" pushes opinions or "only" lies in every instance; instead, the materials document systemic vulnerabilities, documented harms from misinformation, and active journalistic responses ^{[1] [2] [4]}. The evidence supports skepticism about platforms and the growing risks of unchecked falsehood, but it does not validate an absolute indictment of every communicator as uniformly dishonest. That distinction matters for accurate accountability.

8. Bottom Line — A Nuanced Verdict and What Is Missing for a Definitive Judgment

The claim mixes valid concerns about misinformation and platform choices with an absolute moral judgment that goes beyond the available evidence. The supplied sources substantiate that misinformation spreads widely, causes harm, and that fact-checking efforts face new challenges, while also showing that journalism and fact-checkers continue countervailing work ^{[1] [5] [4]}. To move from critique to a definitive accusation of habitual deceit requires direct, documented instances tying specific actors to intentional lies rather than systemic critique; that evidentiary step is not present in the materials provided ^[7].