3 ms·

I deliberately and ironically linked to the UK Daily Mail - the largest online 'newspaper' on the planet- and their Snopes story as an example of a 'credible' n

I deliberately and ironically linked to the UK Daily Mail - the largest online 'newspaper' on the planet- and their Snopes story as an example of a 'credible' news site (despite all the click bait Taboola style 'stories' on it). You don't have to look far to find troubling criticism of Snopes and their ad agency owners online example 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... The fact that they are a fundamental information filter for FB seems very off to me...

kadenshep 9y ago
You backed up your point with a website that is staunchly pro pseudo-science and fear mongering, which contains multiple sources from the Daily Mail yet again to make their point. Of course you won't have to go far to find circular sources in an echo chamber, but finding qualified sources for your point seems to be difficult.
- olivermarks 9y ago
  You are clearly debating based on perceptions of my being part of 'a certain segment of people with particular persuasions'. I gave up Facebook but I am very interested in who gets to decide what information I am allowed to see via the internet. I don't think either the Daily Mail or Snopes are credible information filters. I would hope for something better. 'Pseudo science' is another case in point. who gets to decide what is 'real' science and what is 'pseudo'? It's the same censorship challenge as the 'news' crack down on free speech...
  - kadenshep 9y ago
    >You are clearly debating based on perceptions of my being part of 'a certain segment of people with particular persuasions'. No I'm not. I asked a very concise question that you could not answer. You replied with junk. The optics are just icing on the cake. Also real science adheres to the scientific method.
  - ch4s3 9y ago
    No, your evidence is just form ridiculous sources. The "FoodBabe" article repeats the same nonsense from the DailyMail, and throws in some Monsanto fearmongering.

kadenshep 9y ago

You backed up your point with a website that is staunchly pro pseudo-science and fear mongering, which contains multiple sources from the Daily Mail yet again to make their point. Of course you won't have to go far to find circular sources in an echo chamber, but finding qualified sources for your point seems to be difficult.

olivermarks 9y ago
You are clearly debating based on perceptions of my being part of 'a certain segment of people with particular persuasions'. I gave up Facebook but I am very interested in who gets to decide what information I am allowed to see via the internet. I don't think either the Daily Mail or Snopes are credible information filters. I would hope for something better. 'Pseudo science' is another case in point. who gets to decide what is 'real' science and what is 'pseudo'? It's the same censorship challenge as the 'news' crack down on free speech...
- kadenshep 9y ago
  >You are clearly debating based on perceptions of my being part of 'a certain segment of people with particular persuasions'. No I'm not. I asked a very concise question that you could not answer. You replied with junk. The optics are just icing on the cake. Also real science adheres to the scientific method.
- ch4s3 9y ago
  No, your evidence is just form ridiculous sources. The "FoodBabe" article repeats the same nonsense from the DailyMail, and throws in some Monsanto fearmongering.