Social Media "Fact-Checking" Is a Social Credit Score in Disguise
Almost every text dealing with a complicated issue is wrong somewhere with respect to something: I don't care if it is a text by Keynes (where it is wrong in a lot of places) or Friedman, a decision by Antonin Scalia, or even a scientific text: It is likely someone, esp. someone uncharitable, can argue some part of it is "wrong." From there, this person can argue it is misinformation.
So, in fact, misinformation as they call it is a political category: Because it isn't really about whether errors exist but which errors and inaccuracies the authorities are willing to tolerate and which they are not. And since they cannot fact check everything, we know the very fact that something was subjected to a fact check is likely a political decision.
In fact, we see outright error getting a pass: No articles mentioning Sicknick's death from supposedly being beaten with a fire extinguisher have been flagged even though his death was not ruled a homicide and he, in fact, died from a blood clot. Indeed, articles claiming this even after the New York Times posted its correction on the matter are likely not being flagged. If you post about these topics, the probability of being penalized goes up. Given enough time, you will end up incurring these penalties. That is how probability works, after all.
How many articles alleging Russian collusion were ever "fact-checked"?
These algorithms that flag "misinformation" and reduce your circulation accordingly are, in fact, social credit scores in disguise: Because they are choosing to fact check certain topics and are therefore really dinging you for what you are posting about, not just how accurate what you are posting is.
Of course, Zuckerberg would defend himself by saying that he employees "independent" fact checkers. However, it is interesting that he does not claim to use unbiased fact checkers. Being independent does not ensure they will be fair. Furthermore, the claim that they are independent is dubious. The very fact that Facebook pays them means they are not truly independent as, ostensibly, Facebook could move to another service if they were unhappy with their decisions. They are subcontractors, not "independent."
Bias and perverse incentives pervade the whole fact-checking enterprise.
(And I bet, if you looked carefully, they discriminate not only against political groups but against protected classes as well.)
[Sidenote: I wonder if their algorithm counts the absolute amount of "misinformation" you post or the percentage. Because if it is based on a percentage maybe a person can pad his page with cat videos or some other innocuous thing like that and get a good rating. If you see me posting cat videos, that will be the reason.]