3 ms·

Snopes chose to target, among other things, a Babylon Bee article talking about how CNN bought industrial laundry equipment to spin their news. The only people

by wl 7y ago

Snopes chose to target, among other things, a Babylon Bee article talking about how CNN bought industrial laundry equipment to spin their news. The only people who could possibly be confused that this is real news are toddlers who have not yet developed abstract thinking and would be confused by the whole thing anyway. It's a strong indication that Snopes is engaging in the culture war as an interested party. It's not a good look for a supposedly disinterested fact checker.

pwinnski 7y ago
> The only people who could possibly be confused that this is real news are toddlers Have you been away from the internet for the last couple of years? There is literally nothing on the internet so fantastical that it won't be posted to social media stripped of context and believed by somebody.
- beerandt 7y ago
  So we're going deplatform all satire?
  - dkonofalski 7y ago
    That's not what they're suggesting and you know it.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      I do. But it's an impossible line to draw. How many people need to claim they believe satire is the truth for an article to be flagged?
      - dkonofalski 7y ago
        No, it's not. Every single one of those articles stems from a post on their forum where it's been requested. They regularly pick them based on their popularity in the forum. As long as they're consistent with that, it's completely possible to address these specific instances.
        beerandt 7y ago
        >popularity in the forum This is not, in anyway, a reasonable filter for bias, let alone one for satire.
        dkonofalski 7y ago
        It's not a filter for bias and no one has claimed that it is. It's a filter for whether or not to address the content of a claim. Popularity is absolutely a reasonable filter for that and that seems to be what Snopes is using, regardless of politics, satire, or otherwise.
  - pwinnski 7y ago
    Snopes doesn't de-platform anyone. Your beef is rightly with Google or Facebook. Snopes labels things that are false as false. This includes many or most satirical articles. Given the number of times I've told someone that a thing is false and had to provide a scopes link before they would even start to believe me, I'm very grateful for snopes. Facebook and Google can pound sand.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      I have plenty of issues with them too. But that doesn't exonerate Snopes for twisting claims in misleading ways, whether satire or not. I used to rely on them, too. That's part of the reason that it pisses me off so much... It used to be a great resource. Now I use it more to see how a political claim is going to spun, than to check whether it's true.
PhasmaFelis 7y ago
Snopes also had to debunk an Onion article headlined "Mike Pence Disappointed God Has Never Asked Him To Kill One Of Own Children". It only looks like they're being partisan if you cherry-pick your articles.
- beerandt 7y ago
  Articles like this do not make them neutral. They only make them look neutral. It's the equivalent of claiming to have a black friend as proof you're not racist.
  - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
    > Articles like this do not make them neutral. They are only designed to make them look neutral. Are you asserting, then, that the stories about left-wing idiots are true, but the ones about right-wing idiots are false? I'm honestly curious. Are all of the linked Twitter accounts secret false-flag trolls?
    - beerandt 7y ago
      Not at all... Just that there's a great deal of nuance that goes into many of these Snopes articles that is designed to flip the question so that it might be answered in a favorable way. Just covering an opposing viewpoint doesn't mean it's covered in a neutral way.
  - dev_dull 7y ago
    Here's a "partisan" topic: "Have Democrats Tried to Impeach Every GOP President Since Ike?"[1] According to their site it's 5 out of 6 presidents, or roughly 80%. Their rating: mostly false. Looks mostly true to me. 1. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dems-impeach-gop-presidents/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dems-impeach-gop-president...
ceejayoz 7y ago
> The only people who could possibly be confused that this is real news are toddlers who have not yet developed abstract thinking and would be confused by the whole thing anyway. An actual Congressional representative fell for an Onion article titled "Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex". https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republican-congressman-falls-victim-to-old-onion-article/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republican-congressman-falls-vi... > "I was kind of on the fence in the beginning," says the made-up person, Marcy Kolrath, in the article. "But after a couple of margaritas and a ride down the lazy river they've got circling the place, I got caught up in the vibe. By the time it was over, I almost wished I could've aborted twins and gotten to stay a little longer."
- mnm1 7y ago
  Our congressmen are as dumb as toddlers. What else is new? The parent probably should have specified that no person with a brain could be fooled by such articles. That would have ruled out politicians like this congressman.
TheHypnotist 7y ago
You make too many assumptions. The snopes article on this is two paragraphs long and puts little effort into debunking, as it needs little effort. But for whatever reason, people ask them to look into it. For other reasons, people like you seem to think this diminishes snopes. It doesn't.
- beerandt 7y ago
  >But for whatever reason, people ask them to look into it. Maybe because a false rating leads to being buried by Google and Facebook. That's a legitimate motive. Asking for someone or something to be investigated isn't necessarily a de-facto innocence excuse.
  - TheHypnotist 7y ago
    I think poor satire is to blame for being buried, not snopes. When the lines are blurred between misinformation and satire, and a relatively unknown satire website with an obvious agenda produces articles that walk that line, maybe they have it coming because simply put, they aren't very good.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - beerandt 7y ago
      Not necessarily. Some of it is bad, certainly. But a lot just turns on being juxtaposed against a prerequisite belief that's not universal. If you don't share that belief, it won't be funny to you. That doesn't (necessarily) make it bad satire.
      - TheHypnotist 7y ago
        Sure, and I'm trying to be objective but I believe my assertion is universal. If your content is poor, your return is poor. Perhaps the publication should look inward, not outward, and realize the lines between misinformation and satire are paper thin. Somehow, and perhaps its branding, The Onion manages to maintain humor and absurdity with very little room for interpreting it's content as anything but satire.
DonHopkins 7y ago
>The only people who could possibly be confused that this is real news are toddlers who have not yet developed abstract thinking and would be confused by the whole thing anyway. Or a geriatric toddler whose has long since lost his capacity for abstract thinking due to dementia, and would be easily confused by Rudolph Giuliani pedaling ridiculous conspiracy theories that stroke his ego about Russia having nothing to do with interference in the election, if you know who I mean.

by wl 7y ago

pwinnski 7y ago

> The only people who could possibly be confused that this is real news are toddlers Have you been away from the internet for the last couple of years? There is literally nothing on the internet so fantastical that it won't be posted to social media stripped of context and believed by somebody.

beerandt 7y ago
So we're going deplatform all satire?
- dkonofalski 7y ago
  That's not what they're suggesting and you know it.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    I do. But it's an impossible line to draw. How many people need to claim they believe satire is the truth for an article to be flagged?
    - dkonofalski 7y ago
      No, it's not. Every single one of those articles stems from a post on their forum where it's been requested. They regularly pick them based on their popularity in the forum. As long as they're consistent with that, it's completely possible to address these specific instances.
      - beerandt 7y ago
        >popularity in the forum This is not, in anyway, a reasonable filter for bias, let alone one for satire.
        dkonofalski 7y ago
        It's not a filter for bias and no one has claimed that it is. It's a filter for whether or not to address the content of a claim. Popularity is absolutely a reasonable filter for that and that seems to be what Snopes is using, regardless of politics, satire, or otherwise.
- pwinnski 7y ago
  Snopes doesn't de-platform anyone. Your beef is rightly with Google or Facebook. Snopes labels things that are false as false. This includes many or most satirical articles. Given the number of times I've told someone that a thing is false and had to provide a scopes link before they would even start to believe me, I'm very grateful for snopes. Facebook and Google can pound sand.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    I have plenty of issues with them too. But that doesn't exonerate Snopes for twisting claims in misleading ways, whether satire or not. I used to rely on them, too. That's part of the reason that it pisses me off so much... It used to be a great resource. Now I use it more to see how a political claim is going to spun, than to check whether it's true.

PhasmaFelis 7y ago

Snopes also had to debunk an Onion article headlined "Mike Pence Disappointed God Has Never Asked Him To Kill One Of Own Children". It only looks like they're being partisan if you cherry-pick your articles.

beerandt 7y ago
Articles like this do not make them neutral. They only make them look neutral. It's the equivalent of claiming to have a black friend as proof you're not racist.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  > Articles like this do not make them neutral. They are only designed to make them look neutral. Are you asserting, then, that the stories about left-wing idiots are true, but the ones about right-wing idiots are false? I'm honestly curious. Are all of the linked Twitter accounts secret false-flag trolls?
  - beerandt 7y ago
    Not at all... Just that there's a great deal of nuance that goes into many of these Snopes articles that is designed to flip the question so that it might be answered in a favorable way. Just covering an opposing viewpoint doesn't mean it's covered in a neutral way.
- dev_dull 7y ago
  Here's a "partisan" topic: "Have Democrats Tried to Impeach Every GOP President Since Ike?"[1] According to their site it's 5 out of 6 presidents, or roughly 80%. Their rating: mostly false. Looks mostly true to me. 1. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dems-impeach-gop-presidents/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dems-impeach-gop-president...

ceejayoz 7y ago

> The only people who could possibly be confused that this is real news are toddlers who have not yet developed abstract thinking and would be confused by the whole thing anyway. An actual Congressional representative fell for an Onion article titled "Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex". https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republican-congressman-falls-victim-to-old-onion-article/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republican-congressman-falls-vi... > "I was kind of on the fence in the beginning," says the made-up person, Marcy Kolrath, in the article. "But after a couple of margaritas and a ride down the lazy river they've got circling the place, I got caught up in the vibe. By the time it was over, I almost wished I could've aborted twins and gotten to stay a little longer."

mnm1 7y ago
Our congressmen are as dumb as toddlers. What else is new? The parent probably should have specified that no person with a brain could be fooled by such articles. That would have ruled out politicians like this congressman.

TheHypnotist 7y ago

You make too many assumptions. The snopes article on this is two paragraphs long and puts little effort into debunking, as it needs little effort. But for whatever reason, people ask them to look into it. For other reasons, people like you seem to think this diminishes snopes. It doesn't.

beerandt 7y ago
>But for whatever reason, people ask them to look into it. Maybe because a false rating leads to being buried by Google and Facebook. That's a legitimate motive. Asking for someone or something to be investigated isn't necessarily a de-facto innocence excuse.
- TheHypnotist 7y ago
  I think poor satire is to blame for being buried, not snopes. When the lines are blurred between misinformation and satire, and a relatively unknown satire website with an obvious agenda produces articles that walk that line, maybe they have it coming because simply put, they aren't very good.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - beerandt 7y ago
    Not necessarily. Some of it is bad, certainly. But a lot just turns on being juxtaposed against a prerequisite belief that's not universal. If you don't share that belief, it won't be funny to you. That doesn't (necessarily) make it bad satire.
    - TheHypnotist 7y ago
      Sure, and I'm trying to be objective but I believe my assertion is universal. If your content is poor, your return is poor. Perhaps the publication should look inward, not outward, and realize the lines between misinformation and satire are paper thin. Somehow, and perhaps its branding, The Onion manages to maintain humor and absurdity with very little room for interpreting it's content as anything but satire.

DonHopkins 7y ago

>The only people who could possibly be confused that this is real news are toddlers who have not yet developed abstract thinking and would be confused by the whole thing anyway. Or a geriatric toddler whose has long since lost his capacity for abstract thinking due to dementia, and would be easily confused by Rudolph Giuliani pedaling ridiculous conspiracy theories that stroke his ego about Russia having nothing to do with interference in the election, if you know who I mean.