2 ms·
It's not the fact that there is a divorce settlement, but the contents thereof which are at issue. If this were entirely false (as I would have expected from t
by Natsu 10y ago
It's not the fact that there is a divorce settlement, but the contents thereof which are at issue. If this were entirely false (as I would have expected from the Daily Mail), they could've said as much.
But there are quite a few things, like the allegations of criminal activity (e.g. embezzlement) going on at Snopes that reasonable people might have questions about with respect to their fact-checking operations.
- anigbrowl 10y agoThe fact that unfavorable information is out there doesn't obviate a contractual agreement not to discuss it in public per the settlement. Doing something that could cost you (as here) is the very foundation of contract. I neither know nor much care how their operation runs, and it's not my purpose to defend it. To be honest I've never especially liked the people who run it; their deconstructions of internet rumors are often snarky and shallow, and undermine their factual value with distracting tone issues - but that's how they choose to run their business. I'm just pointing to the fact of the site's general reliability as a fact-checking service over a long period.
- Natsu 10y agoRight, I know they may be unable to discuss it even when it's public. I was saying if it were entirely made up (i.e. there is no such settlement to begin with), they could say as much.