5 ms·

Personally, I think using "Snopes" as a fact checking source gives it much more credibility than it deserves. And the whole idea of publishing "Fact Checks" li

by oblib 9y ago

Personally, I think using "Snopes" as a fact checking source gives it much more credibility than it deserves. And the whole idea of publishing "Fact Checks" like this sounds and feels Orwellian. I don't mean to say that I don't trust those media fact checkers who dig into claims made by competing media sources, but I don't trust them 100% and I've seen blatant spin in too many "Fact Check" claims to not have to fact check them too. Hell, I don't even trust Google search results anymore.

smt88 9y ago
Examples of Snopes or other reputable fact checkers being wrong or biased?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- bpodgursky 9y ago
  They rarely lie about straight facts, but the WashPo checker obviously slants their "half lie", "pants on fire" "mostly true" measures as politically convenient. Most people are too lazy to read the full details.
  - smt88 9y ago
    Example(s)? I read the full details. There were several situations in which I thought they were being too diplomatic regarding the Clinton email scandal (meaning they were being unnecessarily harsh on Clinton).
- oblib 9y ago
  I think this is pretty bias: http://www.snopes.com/monsanto-suppressing-evidence-of-cancerous-herbicide-in-food/ http://www.snopes.com/monsanto-suppressing-evidence-of-cance...
  - smt88 9y ago
    How so? They explain their reasoning, and it's independently verifiable. I was especially impressed by the note at the bottom: > "NOTE: This story has been updated based on discussions with a number of scientists in the field. It was originally listed as a MIXTURE, but we have now reclassified it as FALSE in response to concerns that our original narrative might have led viewers into taking the results of an activist group’s lab analyses as a scientifically rigorous addition to the debate."
    - oblib 9y ago
      It is bias because it ignores and dismisses information that is relevant. I'm not a fan of "Food Babe" but I have read up on what scientists who are not paid or influenced by Monsanto have said in their studies and how much Monsanto has done to discredit them as well. Here is "Food Babes" response to their "Fact Check". Look into it and follow up on what she says: https://foodbabe.com/2017/02/24/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont-after-reading-how-they-work-with-monsanto-operatives/ https://foodbabe.com/2017/02/24/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont...
      - smt88 9y ago
        But most of that hinges on IARC, which is (literally) a joke[1] in the scientific world, and that there are conflicts of interest among some (not all) researchers. The argument is just that glyphosate isn't dangerous at the doses found in food, and that seems to be true based on Wikipedia's summary of the existing research[2]. That's distinct from the argument that glyophosate is safe for the environment or that it's safe for workers handling it in large quantities. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Agency_for_Research_on_Cancer#Criticismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Agency_for_Research_on_Cancer#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Agency_for_Resea... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Human https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Human
        oblib 9y ago
        The distinction you point out is part of the problem I have with Snopes because those statements are not fully qualified. We really do not know the long term effects of exposure and to dismiss that aspect ignores the cautionary principal which has been ignored far too much in this debate. We can look at DDT as an example of what can happen when ignore and dismiss long term results. It is true DDT didn't affect those who wallowed in it and that was used to "prove" it was safe, but it is also true it affected their children, especially females, and not until they were adults did those effects become apparent. It is also true that eating food is not the only source of exposure for everyone. And it's also true that homeowners and farmers don't always follow the instructions and laws for using these products. So, if we read Snopes "Fact Check" on this issue it's very easy to come away thinking all those who've done independent research are wackos and glyphosate is "Safe" and may even lead some of them to say they believe it's "Safe to drink a quart of it" and therein lies the problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
- shaunol 9y ago
  http://www.snopes.com/supreme-court-justices-stand/ http://www.snopes.com/supreme-court-justices-stand/ a complete fabrication is 'mostly' false. "What's true" is not even relevant to the claim.
  - michaelbuckbee 9y ago
    I think what you're saying is that it should flatly be "False" and not just "Mostly False". Per their stated rating system [1], 'Mostly False' is defined as "This rating indicates that the primary elements of a claim are demonstrably false." The slim kernel of truth in it is that the fake letter references a real court case involving the Supreme Court and Gorsuch - which seems like why it was only Mostly. 1 - http://www.snopes.com/ratings/ http://www.snopes.com/ratings/
- tenpies 9y ago
  I hate to go back to the recent elections, but that's probably when Snopes lost a significant amount of reputation in my book. It's not that they're mis-reporting, but there's a complete mismatch between what they claim to be fact, and what the "rating" is. For example: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/ http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-lau... The claim: Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case. What's true: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant, and later chuckled about some aspects of the case when discussing it years later. What's false: Hillary Clinton did not volunteer to be the defendant's lawyer, she did not laugh about the case's outcome, she did not assert that the complainant "made up the rape story," she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty, and she did not "free" the defendant. The language used is already terribly biased. Young Hillary reluctantly defended this child rapist and she merely chuckled - not laughed - chuckled! Snopes verdict: Mostly False. What? What worries me is that when Google and others use Snopes they're not looking at what Snopes reports, just the "verdict". If I read that "Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case." is "mostly false", I'm not going to assume that it's mostly false because she chuckled instead of laughed, I'm going to assume it's mostly false because she did not defend an accused child rapist.
watter 9y ago
Sounds and feels Orwellian? This is pretty much the definition. Snopes is basically one guy putting a US Democrat spin on everything. Getting really tired of Silicon Valley do-goodery.
- watter 9y ago
  Bring on the downvotes! It is still Orwellian.
- michaelbuckbee 9y ago
  Most of my exposure to Snopes is pointing relatives worried about things like celebrity deaths, The Onion articles, and that Harry Potter is a satanist to it in an attempt to counteract whatever they were exposed to on Facebook. At the very least, they seem on the side of sanity against bullshit like that. As to their politics, they seem to get criticized by both sides [1] - which while not an automatic pass of trustworthiness at least seems to be on the right path. 1 - http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/politics.asp http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/politics.asp
  - watter 9y ago
    "Being on the right path" doesn't mean that long-term this is a responsible party for steering democracy.
fluxsauce 9y ago
I like the idea of fact checking from journalistic entities. What I don't like is that a lot of the "Fact Checks" are just clickbait titles. > "Was a Chinese Man Arrested in New York for Selling Hot Dogs Made from Dog Meat?" Just give me the answer. I didn't click through, I'm assuming that they're trying to trigger a bias. There's actually another one that is good: > "Bernie Sanders' projection of 'thousands' of deaths from lost health coverage is well-supported"
comex 9y ago
> And the whole idea of publishing "Fact Checks" like this sounds and feels Orwellian. You think it’s Orwellian for there to be an objective truth separable from political spin? Because I’m pretty sure it’s the other way around: a big part of /1984/ was how the government ignored truth altogether in favor of whatever ‘facts’ best fit the political agenda of the moment. “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia,” etc. I know, I know, you’re claiming that Snopes is acting like the government in that analogy… you’d say they’re establishing what purports to be objective truth, and what Google and others are now promoting as such, but in fact may be tainted by political bias… But I don’t buy it. You say yourself that you consider fact checkers valuable: then it shouldn’t be seen as Orwellian to promote them, even if they’re not 100% infallible. If anything, what’s Orwellian is the actual government, as currently headed by a president who has (as president) made assertions as blatantly false and disprovable as anything about Eurasia and Eastasia.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- coldpie 9y ago
  I've found that people who dislike fact checkers often have viewpoints that conflict with objective reality. Thankfully they're usually pretty explicit about it, "this campaign won't be dictated by fact checkers", and thus easy to discard.
- oblib 9y ago
  "You think it’s Orwellian for there to be an objective truth separable from political spin?" I think it is "Orwellian" for me and everyone else to have blind faith in them just because they sport a "Fact Check" moniker above their statements.
- leereeves 9y ago
  Snopes doesn't know the objective truth. All they do is check other sources: other media, press releases, and such, and decide whether they trust those sources. How well do they choose sources to trust? When "fact checking" claims that Obama paid for the release of hostages from Iran, they used Vox as a primary source.[1] Surely we all agree Vox is biased. The story originated in claims by Iranian officials, and lacking direct evidence to support either claim, any objective observer would admit there was no way to know whether Iran or Obama was telling the truth. Snopes, not being objective, confidently rated the story "FALSE". Snopes is most useful when they're able to trace a story back to an admitted satirical source. When they attempt to judge the truth of disputed claims, they don't know more than anyone else. They shouldn't attempt to rate those disputes at all, but the temptation to use the platform to promote opinions is the Shakespearean flaw in fact checking. 1: http://www.snopes.com/obama-bribed-iran-400-million-to-release-u-s-prisoners/ http://www.snopes.com/obama-bribed-iran-400-million-to-relea...
Splatter 9y ago
I don't like the fact checking feature at all. Moreover, why can't I control which fact checkers I want or, better yet, why can't I turn off the fact checking panel completely? I'm a big boy and I'll do my own fact checking if that's what I choose to do.
- chimprich 9y ago
  If you're a HackerNews reader you can probably figure out a technical solution to hide it fairly easily. Being able to choose who checks facts is pretty much the same as being able to decide your own (alternative?) facts, which is the problem they're trying to solve.
  - Splatter 9y ago
    - If you're a HackerNews reader you can probably figure out a technical solution to hide it fairly easily. For sure. Hiding the panel was done within minutes of realizing that Google didn't provide a way to either redefine/block who fact-checks or remove the panel altogether. That doesn't change the point that Google should have provided a way to hide the panel for those who don't want it. - Being able to choose who checks facts is pretty much the same as being able to decide your own (alternative?) facts, which is the problem they're trying to solve. They're trying to solve a problem I didn't ask them to solve. I'll do my own fact-checking.
blfr 9y ago
I don't mean to say that I don't trust those media fact checkers I would say that. In fact, I trust them even less than the outlets they cover. Most "fact checking" is opinion disguised as analysis making it just a boring op-ed.
- coldpie 9y ago
  Why do you feel this way? What specific experiences have lead you to that conclusion?
- BeetleB 9y ago
  I'll second the question: Can you give examples of poor fact checking. I have seen very biased fact checkers - their information is accurate, but their selection of things to factcheck were highly partisan. But I've also seen fantastic fact checkers. So some judgment is still needed. But on the whole, I wouldn't put fact checkers down. The good ones are far better than any news site I've been to.
0x4f3759df 9y ago
Fact checking just offloads thinking onto someone else. Is X true? You have to go dig around and find the answer (time and energy), or you can accept someone's opinion that you trust (shortcut).

by oblib 9y ago

smt88 9y ago

Examples of Snopes or other reputable fact checkers being wrong or biased?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
bpodgursky 9y ago
They rarely lie about straight facts, but the WashPo checker obviously slants their "half lie", "pants on fire" "mostly true" measures as politically convenient. Most people are too lazy to read the full details.
- smt88 9y ago
  Example(s)? I read the full details. There were several situations in which I thought they were being too diplomatic regarding the Clinton email scandal (meaning they were being unnecessarily harsh on Clinton).
oblib 9y ago
I think this is pretty bias: http://www.snopes.com/monsanto-suppressing-evidence-of-cancerous-herbicide-in-food/ http://www.snopes.com/monsanto-suppressing-evidence-of-cance...
- smt88 9y ago
  How so? They explain their reasoning, and it's independently verifiable. I was especially impressed by the note at the bottom: > "NOTE: This story has been updated based on discussions with a number of scientists in the field. It was originally listed as a MIXTURE, but we have now reclassified it as FALSE in response to concerns that our original narrative might have led viewers into taking the results of an activist group’s lab analyses as a scientifically rigorous addition to the debate."
  - oblib 9y ago
    It is bias because it ignores and dismisses information that is relevant. I'm not a fan of "Food Babe" but I have read up on what scientists who are not paid or influenced by Monsanto have said in their studies and how much Monsanto has done to discredit them as well. Here is "Food Babes" response to their "Fact Check". Look into it and follow up on what she says: https://foodbabe.com/2017/02/24/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont-after-reading-how-they-work-with-monsanto-operatives/ https://foodbabe.com/2017/02/24/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont...
    - smt88 9y ago
      But most of that hinges on IARC, which is (literally) a joke[1] in the scientific world, and that there are conflicts of interest among some (not all) researchers. The argument is just that glyphosate isn't dangerous at the doses found in food, and that seems to be true based on Wikipedia's summary of the existing research[2]. That's distinct from the argument that glyophosate is safe for the environment or that it's safe for workers handling it in large quantities. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Agency_for_Research_on_Cancer#Criticismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Agency_for_Research_on_Cancer#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Agency_for_Resea... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Human https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Human
      - oblib 9y ago
        The distinction you point out is part of the problem I have with Snopes because those statements are not fully qualified. We really do not know the long term effects of exposure and to dismiss that aspect ignores the cautionary principal which has been ignored far too much in this debate. We can look at DDT as an example of what can happen when ignore and dismiss long term results. It is true DDT didn't affect those who wallowed in it and that was used to "prove" it was safe, but it is also true it affected their children, especially females, and not until they were adults did those effects become apparent. It is also true that eating food is not the only source of exposure for everyone. And it's also true that homeowners and farmers don't always follow the instructions and laws for using these products. So, if we read Snopes "Fact Check" on this issue it's very easy to come away thinking all those who've done independent research are wackos and glyphosate is "Safe" and may even lead some of them to say they believe it's "Safe to drink a quart of it" and therein lies the problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
shaunol 9y ago
http://www.snopes.com/supreme-court-justices-stand/ http://www.snopes.com/supreme-court-justices-stand/ a complete fabrication is 'mostly' false. "What's true" is not even relevant to the claim.
- michaelbuckbee 9y ago
  I think what you're saying is that it should flatly be "False" and not just "Mostly False". Per their stated rating system [1], 'Mostly False' is defined as "This rating indicates that the primary elements of a claim are demonstrably false." The slim kernel of truth in it is that the fake letter references a real court case involving the Supreme Court and Gorsuch - which seems like why it was only Mostly. 1 - http://www.snopes.com/ratings/ http://www.snopes.com/ratings/
tenpies 9y ago
I hate to go back to the recent elections, but that's probably when Snopes lost a significant amount of reputation in my book. It's not that they're mis-reporting, but there's a complete mismatch between what they claim to be fact, and what the "rating" is. For example: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/ http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-lau... The claim: Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case. What's true: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant, and later chuckled about some aspects of the case when discussing it years later. What's false: Hillary Clinton did not volunteer to be the defendant's lawyer, she did not laugh about the case's outcome, she did not assert that the complainant "made up the rape story," she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty, and she did not "free" the defendant. The language used is already terribly biased. Young Hillary reluctantly defended this child rapist and she merely chuckled - not laughed - chuckled! Snopes verdict: Mostly False. What? What worries me is that when Google and others use Snopes they're not looking at what Snopes reports, just the "verdict". If I read that "Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case." is "mostly false", I'm not going to assume that it's mostly false because she chuckled instead of laughed, I'm going to assume it's mostly false because she did not defend an accused child rapist.

watter 9y ago

Sounds and feels Orwellian? This is pretty much the definition. Snopes is basically one guy putting a US Democrat spin on everything. Getting really tired of Silicon Valley do-goodery.

watter 9y ago
Bring on the downvotes! It is still Orwellian.
michaelbuckbee 9y ago
Most of my exposure to Snopes is pointing relatives worried about things like celebrity deaths, The Onion articles, and that Harry Potter is a satanist to it in an attempt to counteract whatever they were exposed to on Facebook. At the very least, they seem on the side of sanity against bullshit like that. As to their politics, they seem to get criticized by both sides [1] - which while not an automatic pass of trustworthiness at least seems to be on the right path. 1 - http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/politics.asp http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/politics.asp
- watter 9y ago
  "Being on the right path" doesn't mean that long-term this is a responsible party for steering democracy.

fluxsauce 9y ago

I like the idea of fact checking from journalistic entities. What I don't like is that a lot of the "Fact Checks" are just clickbait titles. > "Was a Chinese Man Arrested in New York for Selling Hot Dogs Made from Dog Meat?" Just give me the answer. I didn't click through, I'm assuming that they're trying to trigger a bias. There's actually another one that is good: > "Bernie Sanders' projection of 'thousands' of deaths from lost health coverage is well-supported"

comex 9y ago

> And the whole idea of publishing "Fact Checks" like this sounds and feels Orwellian. You think it’s Orwellian for there to be an objective truth separable from political spin? Because I’m pretty sure it’s the other way around: a big part of /1984/ was how the government ignored truth altogether in favor of whatever ‘facts’ best fit the political agenda of the moment. “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia,” etc. I know, I know, you’re claiming that Snopes is acting like the government in that analogy… you’d say they’re establishing what purports to be objective truth, and what Google and others are now promoting as such, but in fact may be tainted by political bias… But I don’t buy it. You say yourself that you consider fact checkers valuable: then it shouldn’t be seen as Orwellian to promote them, even if they’re not 100% infallible. If anything, what’s Orwellian is the actual government, as currently headed by a president who has (as president) made assertions as blatantly false and disprovable as anything about Eurasia and Eastasia.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
coldpie 9y ago
I've found that people who dislike fact checkers often have viewpoints that conflict with objective reality. Thankfully they're usually pretty explicit about it, "this campaign won't be dictated by fact checkers", and thus easy to discard.
oblib 9y ago
"You think it’s Orwellian for there to be an objective truth separable from political spin?" I think it is "Orwellian" for me and everyone else to have blind faith in them just because they sport a "Fact Check" moniker above their statements.
leereeves 9y ago
Snopes doesn't know the objective truth. All they do is check other sources: other media, press releases, and such, and decide whether they trust those sources. How well do they choose sources to trust? When "fact checking" claims that Obama paid for the release of hostages from Iran, they used Vox as a primary source.[1] Surely we all agree Vox is biased. The story originated in claims by Iranian officials, and lacking direct evidence to support either claim, any objective observer would admit there was no way to know whether Iran or Obama was telling the truth. Snopes, not being objective, confidently rated the story "FALSE". Snopes is most useful when they're able to trace a story back to an admitted satirical source. When they attempt to judge the truth of disputed claims, they don't know more than anyone else. They shouldn't attempt to rate those disputes at all, but the temptation to use the platform to promote opinions is the Shakespearean flaw in fact checking. 1: http://www.snopes.com/obama-bribed-iran-400-million-to-release-u-s-prisoners/ http://www.snopes.com/obama-bribed-iran-400-million-to-relea...

Splatter 9y ago

I don't like the fact checking feature at all. Moreover, why can't I control which fact checkers I want or, better yet, why can't I turn off the fact checking panel completely? I'm a big boy and I'll do my own fact checking if that's what I choose to do.

chimprich 9y ago
If you're a HackerNews reader you can probably figure out a technical solution to hide it fairly easily. Being able to choose who checks facts is pretty much the same as being able to decide your own (alternative?) facts, which is the problem they're trying to solve.
- Splatter 9y ago
  - If you're a HackerNews reader you can probably figure out a technical solution to hide it fairly easily. For sure. Hiding the panel was done within minutes of realizing that Google didn't provide a way to either redefine/block who fact-checks or remove the panel altogether. That doesn't change the point that Google should have provided a way to hide the panel for those who don't want it. - Being able to choose who checks facts is pretty much the same as being able to decide your own (alternative?) facts, which is the problem they're trying to solve. They're trying to solve a problem I didn't ask them to solve. I'll do my own fact-checking.

blfr 9y ago

I don't mean to say that I don't trust those media fact checkers I would say that. In fact, I trust them even less than the outlets they cover. Most "fact checking" is opinion disguised as analysis making it just a boring op-ed.

coldpie 9y ago
Why do you feel this way? What specific experiences have lead you to that conclusion?
BeetleB 9y ago
I'll second the question: Can you give examples of poor fact checking. I have seen very biased fact checkers - their information is accurate, but their selection of things to factcheck were highly partisan. But I've also seen fantastic fact checkers. So some judgment is still needed. But on the whole, I wouldn't put fact checkers down. The good ones are far better than any news site I've been to.

0x4f3759df 9y ago

Fact checking just offloads thinking onto someone else. Is X true? You have to go dig around and find the answer (time and energy), or you can accept someone's opinion that you trust (shortcut).