The coverage of ukraine-russia conflict has shown that online fact-checking is not only farcical, in variably filled with biases, and often manipulated by regional governments. To evaluate for credibility for trust one has to start with an objective view in analyzing a balanced set of sources of input in order to garner a full picture of claims and biases before processing for a set of filters in disinformation and misinformation. This implies looking at both sides of the argument. However, as pro-russian media outlets are blocked and only pro-ukrainian western mainstream media is allowed coverage, a one-sided narrative is provided to the masses. As a result, the credibility process becomes flawed which undermines the process of fact-checking. The web has become a pre-filtered echo chamber where blocking freedoms of speech are ruthlessly defended through geographic jurisdictions. The western notion of freedom of speech emerges as a facade. In a court of law, there tend to be two-sides, a defense and a prosecution. On the web and social media, the defense is blocked and only a biased prosecution is made available. If a government jurisdiction can intervene to suppress freedoms of speech then it leaves little in process of credibility evaluation, especially when the concluding evidential claims is found not to fit or support the narrative. What if the mainstream coverage is an inaccurate projection of events happening on the ground, that would surely result in a cascade of fake news being treated as credible and supported by regional government narratives. In order to accurately evaluate and deliver on credibility one has to go beyond the fold.
