5 ms·

Disappointing to see that it relies on Snopes for "fact checking". Also disappointing to see that what constitutes "quality journalism" is decided by a giant te

Disappointing to see that it relies on Snopes for "fact checking". Also disappointing to see that what constitutes "quality journalism" is decided by a giant technology company. This is a big step backwards.

remyrylan 8y ago
There's definitely an agenda out there, FB and Google now are both using Snopes for fact-checking. https://steemit.com/health/@holisticgreen/snopes-is-the-authority-on-truth-ha-ha-snopes-can-t-even-fact-check-their-own-divorce https://steemit.com/health/@holisticgreen/snopes-is-the-auth...
- cevn 8y ago
  The agenda is the garbage article you just posted. I've never seen such a severe case of ad hominem.
  - remyrylan 8y ago
    The garbage article I posted at least sheds a little bit of light on the fact that snopes is not the bastion of integrity that for some reason it's being portrayed as via both Google and FB. Also congratulations if that's literally the most severe case of ad hominem you've ever seen. Also worth noting: I linked that article because it was the first source I found via searching that highlighted all the shady stuff that founders have done. I'm not aligned with the additional views of the author of that article.
    - croon 8y ago
      > The garbage article I posted at least sheds a little bit of light on the fact that snopes is not the bastion of integrity that for some reason it's being portrayed as via both Google and FB. The thing about that is that the "article" doesn't mention a single case of where Snopes was wrong (I only read the first few pages, so they might've buried something, which would be strategically unwise). Which means they want a character assassination because they can't argue the on the issues alone. The contents might be true, or not, but it doesn't affect the argument.
mwexler 8y ago
Do you have another preferred source? I've actually been quite pleased with my spot checking of Snopes support or refutation on various claims. It may not be truth incarnate, but it seems to do a pretty good job of surfacing a set of verifiable facts when it can.
croon 8y ago
Have any examples of things they've gotten wrong?
- fareesh 8y ago
  I find that they include their interpretation of a statement when it suits a particular point of view, whereas other times they take things very literally, without a measured reading. One example is this case: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-compliant-citizenry/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-compliant-citizenr... There's also the fact that the team behind the website does not have a stellar reputation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#1b979c89227f https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai...
  - gowld 8y ago
    I don't understand what you are trying to show. Snopes debunked Infowars' absurd mischaracterization of the Ivey email (which was however poorly written in confusing pretentious wording), and produced the evidence in full to justify its position. Regarding your second link, I read it and don't see what you are driving at. It says that Snopes has some politically engaged staff members, and doesn't do individual bylines, and someone got divorced.
    - fareesh 8y ago
      I am trying to show a double standard and agenda driven content. https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-alt-right-equally-violent/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-al... The very first sentence of this content illustrates the kind of shady journalism that I would not expect to see from anyone entrusted to be a "Fact checker". They make a reference to "violence in Charlottesville" and the deaths of three people. Two of those deaths are the consequences of a completely unrelated helicopter accident. Here is a news story about the helicopter accident: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/08/15/helicopter-involved-in-charlottesville-crash-was-involved-in-previous-incident/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9bc157540501 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/08/1... The title is "FACT CHECK: Are Antifa and the Alt-Right equally violent". This content goes on to make the suggestion to the reader that Antifa is not organizing any violence (this basis on which the author forms this opinion is categorically false, based on ample evidence around the internet showing cases of organized violence, not in response to "alt right rallies"). Furthermore, there are consequences to what Snopes does when they rate you false. For example: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-washing-machine/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-washing-machine/ i.e. Did CNN Purchase an Industrial-Sized Washing Machine to Spin News? resulted in this: https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/969405110324523008/ https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/969405110324523008/ In the abstract, "fact checking" is not a reliable solution. It is the same problem - if the journalists are not trustworthy, why are the fact checkers trustworthy? Furthermore, Snopes is not reliable.
jadbox 8y ago
do you have a source with higher integrity than snopes and factcheck.org?

remyrylan 8y ago

There's definitely an agenda out there, FB and Google now are both using Snopes for fact-checking. https://steemit.com/health/@holisticgreen/snopes-is-the-authority-on-truth-ha-ha-snopes-can-t-even-fact-check-their-own-divorce https://steemit.com/health/@holisticgreen/snopes-is-the-auth...

cevn 8y ago
The agenda is the garbage article you just posted. I've never seen such a severe case of ad hominem.
- remyrylan 8y ago
  The garbage article I posted at least sheds a little bit of light on the fact that snopes is not the bastion of integrity that for some reason it's being portrayed as via both Google and FB. Also congratulations if that's literally the most severe case of ad hominem you've ever seen. Also worth noting: I linked that article because it was the first source I found via searching that highlighted all the shady stuff that founders have done. I'm not aligned with the additional views of the author of that article.
  - croon 8y ago
    > The garbage article I posted at least sheds a little bit of light on the fact that snopes is not the bastion of integrity that for some reason it's being portrayed as via both Google and FB. The thing about that is that the "article" doesn't mention a single case of where Snopes was wrong (I only read the first few pages, so they might've buried something, which would be strategically unwise). Which means they want a character assassination because they can't argue the on the issues alone. The contents might be true, or not, but it doesn't affect the argument.

mwexler 8y ago

Do you have another preferred source? I've actually been quite pleased with my spot checking of Snopes support or refutation on various claims. It may not be truth incarnate, but it seems to do a pretty good job of surfacing a set of verifiable facts when it can.

croon 8y ago

Have any examples of things they've gotten wrong?

fareesh 8y ago
I find that they include their interpretation of a statement when it suits a particular point of view, whereas other times they take things very literally, without a measured reading. One example is this case: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-compliant-citizenry/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-compliant-citizenr... There's also the fact that the team behind the website does not have a stellar reputation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#1b979c89227f https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai...
- gowld 8y ago
  I don't understand what you are trying to show. Snopes debunked Infowars' absurd mischaracterization of the Ivey email (which was however poorly written in confusing pretentious wording), and produced the evidence in full to justify its position. Regarding your second link, I read it and don't see what you are driving at. It says that Snopes has some politically engaged staff members, and doesn't do individual bylines, and someone got divorced.
  - fareesh 8y ago
    I am trying to show a double standard and agenda driven content. https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-alt-right-equally-violent/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-al... The very first sentence of this content illustrates the kind of shady journalism that I would not expect to see from anyone entrusted to be a "Fact checker". They make a reference to "violence in Charlottesville" and the deaths of three people. Two of those deaths are the consequences of a completely unrelated helicopter accident. Here is a news story about the helicopter accident: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/08/15/helicopter-involved-in-charlottesville-crash-was-involved-in-previous-incident/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9bc157540501 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/08/1... The title is "FACT CHECK: Are Antifa and the Alt-Right equally violent". This content goes on to make the suggestion to the reader that Antifa is not organizing any violence (this basis on which the author forms this opinion is categorically false, based on ample evidence around the internet showing cases of organized violence, not in response to "alt right rallies"). Furthermore, there are consequences to what Snopes does when they rate you false. For example: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-washing-machine/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-washing-machine/ i.e. Did CNN Purchase an Industrial-Sized Washing Machine to Spin News? resulted in this: https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/969405110324523008/ https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/969405110324523008/ In the abstract, "fact checking" is not a reliable solution. It is the same problem - if the journalists are not trustworthy, why are the fact checkers trustworthy? Furthermore, Snopes is not reliable.

jadbox 8y ago

do you have a source with higher integrity than snopes and factcheck.org?