April 19, 2025

There is no legitimate way to do fact checking; and the attempts are an assault upon freedom of speech. If critics had equal opportunity to correct errors, there would be freedom of speech. What a joke. If imposers had to explain all claims, there would be no errors. What another joke.

With the increase in communication media, a lot of problems exist in railroading the processes. So a demand exists for doing something about it. The problem is in trying to control the realities instead of the purposes. Controlling the realities will always be an afront to freedom of speech.

That means so-called misinformation and disinformation cannot be justifiably arbitrated. Yet it is. The fixers are always trying to determine what misinformation is, while they are clueless on the realities. Fact checking is the most visible example.

There is no such thing as fact checking, because there is no such thing as facts. The word fact was created for simple things easily perceived and beyond question. But moving into complex and abstract areas, there are no facts, because surrounding complexities determine correctness.

So the word fact can only be used now days as a generalization for obvious realities with no definitive meaning. But it is used for definitive purposes with so-called fact checking. There is no legitimate way to do fact checking; and the attempts are an assault upon freedom of speech.

Nothing could be clearer for examples than fake greenhouse gases, renewable energy, and the rest of physic-based contrivances. Fact checkers impose the frauds upon everyone. The same is true for an awful lot of fake science that incompetent frauds impose onto society.

Therefore, the improvement in communication processes must avoid fact checking and related attempts to arbitrate realities. But that doesn't mean ignoring the inappropriate use of communication media. The problems can be addressed in terms of purposes and related alignments of realities rather than correctness of realities. It's alignment, not correctness that must be considered.

The purposes are unmistakable in misuse of communication media. But the do-gooders want to get down to micro levels and prove something by arbitrating the meaning of words. The concept of proving needs to be replaced with the concept of evaluating purposes.

Purposes are unmistakable. So why skip over them? The reasons is because evaluation with complex explanations is required to replace proving with purposes. Evaluation requires competence; it's complex and corrupters attack rationality as if it were a corruption. So the escape hatch is in proving instead of evaluating, while there is no such thing as absolute proof.

Proof is a generalization for accepting the obvious as fact. It takes cooperation to accept the obvious as facts; and corrupters will never accept the obvious as facts. So it is more constructive to argue purposes with evaluation and explanation than to try to prove with fake facts.