4 ms·

I've got a friend who, over the years, has consistently forwarded e-mails to me: many were funny and a majority were politically biased toward the conservative

I've got a friend who, over the years, has consistently forwarded e-mails to me: many were funny and a majority were politically biased toward the conservative end of the spectrum. Last election his forwarding of articles that were factually incorrect increased severely to the point that I would read the subject and a few sentences and then discard them. I was surprised that he didn't check out his sources or information before forwarding information: snopes.com and other sites are so readily available and easy to use. I even suggested casually one day how he could check internet rumors with snopes, and he listened, but only muted his forwarding awhile. So I set up a rule routing his e-mail to a separate folder that I check occasionally. I keep the good jokes and flush the fake news. Nonetheless I find it useful for keeping a finger on him and others who are seriously misled or subject to rumors. That way, I know something of what they think and I can still talk to them w/o being shocked. I don't want to refuse someone as a person b/c they're not particularly bright or b/c they are unable to navigate the internet sufficiently to check what is true/false. This way I know a little of what they're thinking on current events and can approach them w/o offending them. And I get to hear the good jokes, which I cannot resist!

20180201 9y ago
... and why do you trust snopes?
- kelukelugames 9y ago
  Snopes provides links to sources.
- giardini 9y ago
  Because - Snopes is easy to use and - usually Snopes has an almost-identical article about each e-mail subject that my friend sends me. So he would, if he checked, see his own e-mail subject and content highlighted with a big banner that said "FALSE" and explained why/how/etc. e.g. https://www.snopes.com/pizzagate-conspiracy/ https://www.snopes.com/pizzagate-conspiracy/ I felt both of these would be necessary if he were ever to examine his sources.
dominotw 9y ago
I remember some site "debunking" fake news that " Hillary acid washed her server" by saying there was no chemical acid used. Was that Snopes?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- leereeves 9y ago
  FactCheck.org said something very similar to that. > Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump falsely claimed Clinton “acid washed” 33,000 personal emails to delete them. The FBI said Clinton’s tech team used BleachBit, which is a free software program. It does not use chemicals. https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-pence-acid-wash-facts/ https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-pence-acid-wash-fact...
justin66 9y ago
There's a section that was recently added to Google News called "Fact Check" that includes links to Politifact, Snopes, and fact checking at various newspapers. It is a good idea, to provide refutations of false stories that are going around, but it is also enormously depressing. Very rarely are any of the stories the sort of thing that should have got any traction at all, since they're just idiotic, and I have never seen anyone change their approach to evaluating the news after being called out on spreading such false stories on social media. The kind of people inclined to believe that stuff just don't care, for the most part.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dominotw 9y ago
  I just went to one of those sites Politifact First link was this http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/feb/08/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrongly-suggests-british-dont-love-th/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/feb/... > thousands of people are marching in the UK because their U system is going broke and not working. Which is true. How did they conclude that he is suggesting "don't love their health care system". You can love NHS and still march because its going broke, marching doesn't imply "don't love".
  - justin66 9y ago
    In order to reflect the subtleties Politifact use a sliding scale instead of purely true/false, and the article you linked is over 20 paragraphs in length.
- giardini 9y ago
  I couldn't find Google's "Fact Check" but did find an article indicating that Google has apparently removed it, stating: "We said previously that we encountered challenges in our systems that maps fact checks to publishers, and on further examination it’s clear that we are unable to deliver the quality we’d like for users....Fact checks from independent organizations will still appear alongside articles in search and Google News. " https://www.poynter.org/news/google-suspends-fact-checking-feature-over-quality-concerns https://www.poynter.org/news/google-suspends-fact-checking-f...

20180201 9y ago

... and why do you trust snopes?

kelukelugames 9y ago
Snopes provides links to sources.
giardini 9y ago
Because - Snopes is easy to use and - usually Snopes has an almost-identical article about each e-mail subject that my friend sends me. So he would, if he checked, see his own e-mail subject and content highlighted with a big banner that said "FALSE" and explained why/how/etc. e.g. https://www.snopes.com/pizzagate-conspiracy/ https://www.snopes.com/pizzagate-conspiracy/ I felt both of these would be necessary if he were ever to examine his sources.

dominotw 9y ago

I remember some site "debunking" fake news that " Hillary acid washed her server" by saying there was no chemical acid used. Was that Snopes?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
leereeves 9y ago
FactCheck.org said something very similar to that. > Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump falsely claimed Clinton “acid washed” 33,000 personal emails to delete them. The FBI said Clinton’s tech team used BleachBit, which is a free software program. It does not use chemicals. https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-pence-acid-wash-facts/ https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-pence-acid-wash-fact...

justin66 9y ago

There's a section that was recently added to Google News called "Fact Check" that includes links to Politifact, Snopes, and fact checking at various newspapers. It is a good idea, to provide refutations of false stories that are going around, but it is also enormously depressing. Very rarely are any of the stories the sort of thing that should have got any traction at all, since they're just idiotic, and I have never seen anyone change their approach to evaluating the news after being called out on spreading such false stories on social media. The kind of people inclined to believe that stuff just don't care, for the most part.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dominotw 9y ago
I just went to one of those sites Politifact First link was this http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/feb/08/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrongly-suggests-british-dont-love-th/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/feb/... > thousands of people are marching in the UK because their U system is going broke and not working. Which is true. How did they conclude that he is suggesting "don't love their health care system". You can love NHS and still march because its going broke, marching doesn't imply "don't love".
- justin66 9y ago
  In order to reflect the subtleties Politifact use a sliding scale instead of purely true/false, and the article you linked is over 20 paragraphs in length.
giardini 9y ago
I couldn't find Google's "Fact Check" but did find an article indicating that Google has apparently removed it, stating: "We said previously that we encountered challenges in our systems that maps fact checks to publishers, and on further examination it’s clear that we are unable to deliver the quality we’d like for users....Fact checks from independent organizations will still appear alongside articles in search and Google News. " https://www.poynter.org/news/google-suspends-fact-checking-feature-over-quality-concerns https://www.poynter.org/news/google-suspends-fact-checking-f...