5 ms·

You're going to give a Forbes article more credence than Snopes? I still haven't seen anyone point to a substantive example of why Snopes should not be trusted.

Turing_Machine 10y ago
"I still haven't seen anyone point to a substantive example of why Snopes should not be trusted." You have it exactly backwards. I've never seen anyone give a good reason why Snopes should be trusted. The Mikkelsons were self-appointed "authorities" from the beginning, with zero actual expertise or credentials in most of the areas they opine upon. Edit: I should add that I view any organization that feels the need to use "truth", "fact", or similar in its name with an extremely jaundiced eye. It's reminiscent of Pravda and "Honest John's Used Cars". Organizations with actual earned credibility don't use names like that, as a rule.
- justinlaster 10y ago
  > I've never seen anyone give a good reason why Snopes should be trusted. Their impressive library of detailed articles in where they factually report on myths and conspiracy theories?
  - Turing_Machine 10y ago
    "Factual reporting" according to whom?
    - justinlaster 10y ago
      According to the epistemological principle of not being proved wrong while containing a reasonable amount of evidence to indicate that their report is in all probability true. Why are you asking such a vague, open-ended question?
      - Turing_Machine 10y ago
        A great deal of what Snopes does (particularly in recent years) is much closer to "opinion" than "fact", especially when they start labeling things "mostly false" or "mostly true" or whatever. You can't do that when you're dealing with actual facts.
        justinlaster 10y ago
        Yes you can. What in the world? You can definitely say something that is partially true. That's what conspiracy theories are built off of: a tinge of truth. "The sky is blue because other stars reflect blue light onto our atmosphere." How would you rate that, given Snopes' scales? Do you have any specific examples where there was a concise yet opinionated decision on any published articles from Snopes that don't rely on hard evidence for their conclusion?
- api 10y ago
  They also launched their reputation by picking on low hanging fruit. Debunking the idea that the towers were taken down on 9/11 with lasers or that Michael Jackson is still alive is not hard. Now they are into very fuzzy realms where they are going to have to fact check claims that are plausible. That's hard work. You have to actually... uhh... check the actual claims. Nobody really fact checks anymore because it's damn expensive. Unless someone gives them a budget for real gumshoe work, Snopes will just end up applying a bunch of political bias filters and lazy heuristics. Facebook could get that with deep learning so I'm not sure why they'd be interested.
  - BummyMon 10y ago
    Deep learning algorithms wouldn't have the cultural significance that snopes has nor the 'credibility' and trust factor they sort of cultivated in debunking those type of myths non-nonpartisan myths. Also deep learning is no panacea.
cloakandswagger 10y ago
Here's one: The former porn star/professional escort that David Mikkelson divorced his wife to marry is now an administrator at Snopes. No amount of mental gymnastics can get me to look past those red flags.
- ternaryoperator 10y ago
  Because he married a pornstar means he doesn't do the research properly, wat?
  - cloakandswagger 10y ago
    >The former porn star/professional escort that David Mikkelson divorced his wife to marry is now an administrator at Snopes She now works as an admin for Snopes. Read the entire comment before kneejerk replying champ
    - akiselev 10y ago
      So someone can't function as a normal, honest employee (what is an administrator? Sounds like either a forum admin or glorified secretary) after they've participated in the sex industry? Or is it the infidelity that bothers you? Either way you're the one with a knee jerk reaction.
    - tzs 10y ago
      So? What does a porn and escort background have to do with one's ability to be an administrator?
- justinlaster 10y ago
  That's not substantive, and certainly doesn't have any effect on the thousands and thousands of articles they've posted. Would you care to link that tenuous red flag to the investigate articles Scopes produces in some fashion?
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  former porn star/professional escort that David Mikkelson divorced his wife to marry is now an administrator at Snopes So because David Mikkelson either divorced his wife and married his assistant, or divorced his wife and hired his mistress, you worry that he might be corruptible, given the right incentives. OK, although this kinda skates over the fact that their consequent unreliability would be obvious to others and thus reduce the market value of their service. I'm not clear why you keep mentioning the fact that the other woman was a former porn star/professional escort. Are you trying to argue that sex workers are inherently untrustworthy people or something?

Turing_Machine 10y ago

"I still haven't seen anyone point to a substantive example of why Snopes should not be trusted." You have it exactly backwards. I've never seen anyone give a good reason why Snopes should be trusted. The Mikkelsons were self-appointed "authorities" from the beginning, with zero actual expertise or credentials in most of the areas they opine upon. Edit: I should add that I view any organization that feels the need to use "truth", "fact", or similar in its name with an extremely jaundiced eye. It's reminiscent of Pravda and "Honest John's Used Cars". Organizations with actual earned credibility don't use names like that, as a rule.

justinlaster 10y ago
> I've never seen anyone give a good reason why Snopes should be trusted. Their impressive library of detailed articles in where they factually report on myths and conspiracy theories?
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  "Factual reporting" according to whom?
  - justinlaster 10y ago
    According to the epistemological principle of not being proved wrong while containing a reasonable amount of evidence to indicate that their report is in all probability true. Why are you asking such a vague, open-ended question?
    - Turing_Machine 10y ago
      A great deal of what Snopes does (particularly in recent years) is much closer to "opinion" than "fact", especially when they start labeling things "mostly false" or "mostly true" or whatever. You can't do that when you're dealing with actual facts.
      - justinlaster 10y ago
        Yes you can. What in the world? You can definitely say something that is partially true. That's what conspiracy theories are built off of: a tinge of truth. "The sky is blue because other stars reflect blue light onto our atmosphere." How would you rate that, given Snopes' scales? Do you have any specific examples where there was a concise yet opinionated decision on any published articles from Snopes that don't rely on hard evidence for their conclusion?
api 10y ago
They also launched their reputation by picking on low hanging fruit. Debunking the idea that the towers were taken down on 9/11 with lasers or that Michael Jackson is still alive is not hard. Now they are into very fuzzy realms where they are going to have to fact check claims that are plausible. That's hard work. You have to actually... uhh... check the actual claims. Nobody really fact checks anymore because it's damn expensive. Unless someone gives them a budget for real gumshoe work, Snopes will just end up applying a bunch of political bias filters and lazy heuristics. Facebook could get that with deep learning so I'm not sure why they'd be interested.
- BummyMon 10y ago
  Deep learning algorithms wouldn't have the cultural significance that snopes has nor the 'credibility' and trust factor they sort of cultivated in debunking those type of myths non-nonpartisan myths. Also deep learning is no panacea.

cloakandswagger 10y ago

Here's one: The former porn star/professional escort that David Mikkelson divorced his wife to marry is now an administrator at Snopes. No amount of mental gymnastics can get me to look past those red flags.

ternaryoperator 10y ago
Because he married a pornstar means he doesn't do the research properly, wat?
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  >The former porn star/professional escort that David Mikkelson divorced his wife to marry is now an administrator at Snopes She now works as an admin for Snopes. Read the entire comment before kneejerk replying champ
  - akiselev 10y ago
    So someone can't function as a normal, honest employee (what is an administrator? Sounds like either a forum admin or glorified secretary) after they've participated in the sex industry? Or is it the infidelity that bothers you? Either way you're the one with a knee jerk reaction.
  - tzs 10y ago
    So? What does a porn and escort background have to do with one's ability to be an administrator?
justinlaster 10y ago
That's not substantive, and certainly doesn't have any effect on the thousands and thousands of articles they've posted. Would you care to link that tenuous red flag to the investigate articles Scopes produces in some fashion?
anigbrowl 10y ago
former porn star/professional escort that David Mikkelson divorced his wife to marry is now an administrator at Snopes So because David Mikkelson either divorced his wife and married his assistant, or divorced his wife and hired his mistress, you worry that he might be corruptible, given the right incentives. OK, although this kinda skates over the fact that their consequent unreliability would be obvious to others and thus reduce the market value of their service. I'm not clear why you keep mentioning the fact that the other woman was a former porn star/professional escort. Are you trying to argue that sex workers are inherently untrustworthy people or something?