Trump Goes on the Attack Against DeSantis 

Perhaps you have seen them: TV ads from a super PAC affiliated with former President Donald Trump that accuse Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis of voting to cut Social Security and Medicare. 

One ad features a (kind of) DeSantis lookalike eating chocolate pudding with his fingers, while the narrator says the Republican governor is "sticking his fingers where they don’t belong." 

The DeSantis team certainly has seen them, and now a pro-DeSantis PAC is pushing back with a response ad that slyly mentions Trump's indictment and questions why Trump is "stealing pages from the [Joe] Biden-[Nancy] Pelosi playbook, repeating lies about Social Security."

What's the truth?

Deputy Managing Editor Rob Farley gets to the bottom of the pudding wars in his article, "Dueling Ads: Trump and DeSantis on Social Security and Medicare."

As Rob writes, Trump and DeSantis in the past have supported plans that sought to rein in future spending on the popular programs for older Americans. None of those proposed changes would have cut current benefits for seniors or those nearing retirement age, but the plans DeSantis supported, while in Congress, would have done far more to restructure the programs than Trump ever proposed, or did, as president. 

DeSantis, who served three terms in Congress, has voted numerous times in the past for changes such as raising the age of eligibility for both programs. But more recently, he suggested during an interview on Fox News on March 2 that his position had shifted.

In the interview, DeSantis said "we’re not going to mess with Social Security as Republicans," when he was asked about a bipartisan group that is discussing gradually raising the full retirement age for Social Security benefits to 70, and changing the formula for benefits for future retirees.

This won't be the last of it. Trump and DeSantis are considered the top two presidential contenders for the Republican nomination in 2024. 

Reader: Today, I was notified via Facebook of a Post submitted by me that you declared to be false. Actually, that was a message seen by me and reproduced, without my having looked into its authenticity. Which begs this question. Am I responsible as a FB participant to conduct a “Fact Check” on all material posted on Facebook, so as to ensure that I don’t inadvertently misrepresent the truth through the innocent use of that Social Medium? Thank you, for clarifying my confusion!

FactCheck.org Director Eugene Kiely: First, you say that we declared your post to be false. I don't know if that is true or not. Facebook's third-party fact-checking program includes at least 90 fact-checking organizations around the world, nearly a dozen of them in the United States. In addition, Facebook also uses artificial intelligence "to scale the work of fact-checkers by applying warning labels to duplicates of false claims," as Facebook explains. This matching program isn't perfect.

You can appeal any rating if you believe that it was done in error. But without having a link to your post, I cannot tell if we rated or if it was rated in error. 

As for your question: "Am I responsible as a FB participant to conduct a “Fact Check” on all material posted on Facebook, so as to ensure that I don’t inadvertently misrepresent the truth through the innocent use of that Social Medium?"

Like any website, app or platform, Facebook requires its users to agree to its terms of service, and the company has the right to take action against your account if you somehow violate those terms, which include its third-party fact-checking program and its community standards, which is separate from its fact-checking program. 

As a fact-checking organization, we encourage all social media users to think twice before sharing a post. You should consider the source of the information and make some effort to determine if there is any evidence that it is accurate. You can do that many ways -- beginning with a simple Google search. In addition, Google also has a tool called "Fact Check Explorer," which is a database of fact-checking articles from us and others. 

Bottom line: Don't share information unless you know it to be true. 

Wrapping Up

Here's what else we've got for you this week:

• "FBI Access Request Is Not Evidence White House ‘Lied’ About Not Being ‘Involved’ in ‘Mar-a-Lago Raid’": 
  There’s no evidence the White House aided or had prior knowledge of the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago in August 2022. By law, the White House requested access for the FBI to review the classified documents that former President Donald Trump turned over seven months earlier. That doesn’t mean the White House was “involved” in the “raid” that came later and “lied” about it, as a conservative commentator claimed.
• "No Evidence Excess Deaths Linked to Vaccines, Contrary to Claims Online:" COVID-19 vaccines substantially reduce the risk of dying from COVID-19, and serious side effects are very rare. Excess deaths among working-age adults in 2021 and 2022 were due to COVID-19 and other factors, not vaccination. Faulty logic underlies claims that vaccines caused mass disability and economic harm.
• "The Facts on Manhattan Crime": The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee plans to hold a “field hearing” in Manhattan on April 17 to draw attention to “how Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s pro-crime, anti-victim policies have led to an increase in violent crime.” Experts told us it was unlikely Bragg had or could have an impact on crime trends, and crime data for Manhattan don’t match the GOP narrative. 
• "Bogus Claim Targets Bud Light Partnership with Transgender Influencer": Bud Light partnered with a transgender social media influencer for a promotion during the NCAA March Madness tournament. Social media users responded with the false claim that the CEO of the company had resigned following a conservative backlash to the partnership. The claim originated in a fabricated article on a satirical website.

• "Preguntas y respuestas sobre los candidatos a vacuna materna y anticuerpos para proteger a los bebés del VRS": Casi todos los niños se enferman del virus respiratorio sincitial, o VRS, antes de cumplir los 2 años, y el año pasado se produjo un aumento notable de hospitalizaciones asociadas al VRS. Pero la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos está estudiando aprobar una vacuna y un anticuerpo monoclonal destinados a proteger a bebés de este virus tan común.
• "Preguntas y respuestas sobre las vacunas candidatas contra el VRS para personas mayores": Este año, la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de EE. UU. estudiará varias solicitudes de vacunas y una de un anticuerpo monoclonal para prevenir la enfermedad por el virus respiratorio sincitial, o VRS. En este artículo repasaremos algunas preguntas frecuentes sobre el VSR y las posibles vacunas para los adultos mayores. 
• "Publicaciones exageran los resultados de laboratorio sobre el impacto del COVID-19 en el sistema inmunitario": Aparte del COVID persistente o de casos muy graves, la mayoría de las investigaciones sugieren que el COVID-19 no causa daños duraderos en el sistema inmunitario. Un par de estudios han encontrado pruebas de algunos daños posibles, pero nada tan grave como una inmunodeficiencia. Sin embargo, personas en las redes sociales malinterpretan un estudio reciente para afirmar erróneamente que el COVID-19 es similar al VIH. 
• "Disminución de casos de influenza se debe a las precauciones durante la pandemia, contrario a lo que afirma una publicación viral": Organizaciones de salud pública han explicado que la razón por la que hubo bastante menos casos de influenza en los años 2020 y 2021 probablemente se debió a las medidas adoptadas para combatir la propagación del virus que causa el COVID-19, tales como lavarse las manos y el distanciamiento físico. Pero una publicación en redes sociales difunde la falsedad de que la disminución de casos de influenza sugiere que el COVID-19 fue un engaño.