3 ms·

Even without that change, the claim is false, though. The claim says that Democrats have attempted to impeach every Republican President. That's false. Additio

Even without that change, the claim is false, though. The claim says that Democrats have attempted to impeach every Republican President. That's false. Additionally, by the criteria you're suggesting, I would wonder then, by extension, if Republicans have attempted to impeach every Democratic President if the only criteria is that some Republican filed for it as opposed to it being a party decision.

beerandt 7y ago
But this is exactly the tactic Snopes uses to be able to flip a fact check answer. In this case, the original claim could have been "most" or "5 out of 6", and changing it to "all" is an easy way to post that big red x.
- dkonofalski 7y ago
  Except that's not true. The article links to the image in question which shows the word "every" used in it. Unless you have evidence (like a link from archive.org) that shows that they changed that image, they're not using any tactics. They're using the claim that was sent to them.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    I meant it only as an illustrative example, in this case, of how easy it is to flip the answer. I don't know the specifics of this particular claim. They are not always using the claim sent to them, and they've been busted dozens of times for changing a claim, instead of changing the result. It's selectively choosing which "original" to use. For actual cases I've already posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21516623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21516623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21516762 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21516762
    - dkonofalski 7y ago
      >they've been busted dozens of times for changing a claim You keep repeating this claim over and over without any evidence whatsoever that this is happening. Even the cases you've posted have no indication that anything was changed to re-frame a result and yet you keep arguing that they're selectively choosing the question and, on top of that, all of them include an image of the original claim, irrespective of what they chose as the title of their page.
      - beerandt 7y ago
        If only Snopes didn't ask archive. org to scrub the entire site. I wonder why a trusted, transparent site would do that...
        dkonofalski 7y ago
        >If only Snopes didn't ask archive. org to scrub the entire site. As with almost all of your other claims, a citation or source is needed. Edit: On top of that, there are several other archive sites that do, in fact, have Snopes articles linked. So, you tell me... why would Snopes "go after" one archive site and not another?
        wl 7y ago
        > Sorry. > This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine. https://web.archive.org/web/*/snopes.com https://web.archive.org/web/*/snopes.com The Wayback Machine only excludes sites upon request.
        beerandt 7y ago
        Most articles aren't archived or have also been scrubbed. Or only have a single recent version archived. For instance archive.is has entries for maybe 2000 out of the 10s of thousands Snopes articles. Of those, less than 5% have multiple archived versions. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/* https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/* This isn't exactly the type of site I'd usually reference, but this woman recorded quite a few page delta's about gmo food and Monsanto, and the Snopes pages getting edited after large ad buys by the company. https://foodbabe.com/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont-after-reading-how-they-work-with-monsanto-operatives/ https://foodbabe.com/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont-after-read...
gadders 7y ago
If you treat it as a binary claim, then you could argue it is false. A more accurate description would be "Mostly True" as 5 out of 6 is a large majority. Republicans may well have tried to impeach every Democrat president. I have no idea. If that is the case, then I hope Snopes has an article fact checking it in a fair way.

beerandt 7y ago

But this is exactly the tactic Snopes uses to be able to flip a fact check answer. In this case, the original claim could have been "most" or "5 out of 6", and changing it to "all" is an easy way to post that big red x.

dkonofalski 7y ago
Except that's not true. The article links to the image in question which shows the word "every" used in it. Unless you have evidence (like a link from archive.org) that shows that they changed that image, they're not using any tactics. They're using the claim that was sent to them.
- beerandt 7y ago
  I meant it only as an illustrative example, in this case, of how easy it is to flip the answer. I don't know the specifics of this particular claim. They are not always using the claim sent to them, and they've been busted dozens of times for changing a claim, instead of changing the result. It's selectively choosing which "original" to use. For actual cases I've already posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21516623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21516623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21516762 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21516762
  - dkonofalski 7y ago
    >they've been busted dozens of times for changing a claim You keep repeating this claim over and over without any evidence whatsoever that this is happening. Even the cases you've posted have no indication that anything was changed to re-frame a result and yet you keep arguing that they're selectively choosing the question and, on top of that, all of them include an image of the original claim, irrespective of what they chose as the title of their page.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      If only Snopes didn't ask archive. org to scrub the entire site. I wonder why a trusted, transparent site would do that...
      - dkonofalski 7y ago
        >If only Snopes didn't ask archive. org to scrub the entire site. As with almost all of your other claims, a citation or source is needed. Edit: On top of that, there are several other archive sites that do, in fact, have Snopes articles linked. So, you tell me... why would Snopes "go after" one archive site and not another?
        wl 7y ago
        > Sorry. > This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine. https://web.archive.org/web/*/snopes.com https://web.archive.org/web/*/snopes.com The Wayback Machine only excludes sites upon request.
        beerandt 7y ago
        Most articles aren't archived or have also been scrubbed. Or only have a single recent version archived. For instance archive.is has entries for maybe 2000 out of the 10s of thousands Snopes articles. Of those, less than 5% have multiple archived versions. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/* https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/* This isn't exactly the type of site I'd usually reference, but this woman recorded quite a few page delta's about gmo food and Monsanto, and the Snopes pages getting edited after large ad buys by the company. https://foodbabe.com/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont-after-reading-how-they-work-with-monsanto-operatives/ https://foodbabe.com/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont-after-read...

gadders 7y ago

If you treat it as a binary claim, then you could argue it is false. A more accurate description would be "Mostly True" as 5 out of 6 is a large majority. Republicans may well have tried to impeach every Democrat president. I have no idea. If that is the case, then I hope Snopes has an article fact checking it in a fair way.