3 ms·
> It isn't on the NYT to disprove the owners aren't child molesters If they don't want to do that they shouldn't title their article "Fact Check". If I see "Fa
by EdiX 10y ago
> It isn't on the NYT to disprove the owners aren't child molesters
If they don't want to do that they shouldn't title their article "Fact Check". If I see "Fact Check" I expect a piece that will engage the conspiracy theory in detail and debunk it piece by piece. Something like Snopes does, for example.
Saying "this is fake news, just trust me" is not a fact check, it's an opinion piece.
- argonaut 10y agoNo, many fact check websites (such as Snopes) will debunk conspiracy theories by simply saying "there is no evidence to support the theory, it's just wild speculation." This is a perfectly valid fact check.
- EdiX 10y agoI disagree that it constitutes a valid fact check, but it doesn't matter, nytimes removed the fact check label.
- argonaut 10y agoIt does constitute a valid fact check. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. Claim: EdiX is a crazy pedophile Fact-check: This is just random speculation and there is no evidence. By your standards an actual fact-check would need to cite testimony from your (ex-)partner(s)/spouse(s), a psychological evaluation, maybe some videos of you not being a pedophile around children. Utterly ridiculous.