The democratic toxic waste pit that is Project 2025 may be getting some help from Facebook.

I don’t use that social media site (actually, I don’t use any), but my wife does. And she forwarded me something that was posted. I have no way to fact-check it, but thought it would be of interest.

Heads up everyone! Facebook is using a Conservative magazine as the blanket “fact check” on the Project 2025 posts. Their algorithm is taking “Project 2025” as the keyword for nuking posts in opposition. I got 16 notifications of my posts being fact checked by ‘The Dispatch’ which is an American conservative subscription-based online magazine founded by Jonah Goldberg, Stephen F. Hayes, and Toby Stock. Several of The Dispatch’s staff (including Hayes) are alumni of The Weekly Standard, which is now defunct. In short, right wing operatives are deciding what’s factual about Project 2025, even though their donors and funders are the same billionaires behind Project 2025.

Indeed, who factchecks the factcheckers?

Can this be confirmed by others? Does anyone who uses FB want to test this out?

<><><><><><>

(edited)

Based on a comment, I’m adding a link to the Dispatch article that seems to be the basis for determining whether Project 2025 claims are true or not:

Dispatch: Viral Claims About Project 2025 Are Mostly False

Some of their points I can acknowledge, but others?

Some examples from the article:

Complete ban on abortions without exceptions: False

One goal of the report’s section on the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), written by Roger Severino, calls for the department to “ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death.” While the section does recommend that the FDA reverse its approval of abortion drug mifepristone or limit its use to less than 50 days of gestation, it does not call for an outright abortion ban.

What? What part of “respect for innocent human life from day one” allows for abortion? This is calling for a an outright abortion ban for all functional purposes. 

End marriage equality: False

A “biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family” is promoted in Project 2025, but it does not advocate for ending the equal legal recognition of traditional and same-sex marriage.

Puleeze… Calling for a biblically-based definition of marriage is about ending marriage equality.

To demonstrate this, their next point:

Condemn single mothers while promoting only “traditional families”: Partly false

The plan calls on the secretary of Health and Human Services to repeal policies that subsidize single motherhood, but it does not “condemn” single mothers. It does promote traditional family structures, however.

“For the sake of child well-being, programs should affirm that children require and deserve both the love and nurturing of a mother and the play and protection of a father,” Severino writes.

How could you claim the first of these as false and with a straight face follow up with the next one? 

So, I just came up with a few examples of misleading parsing that calls into question everything else…