8 ms·

I've also noticed that even fact-checking is being weaponized for political reasons. A lot of the time it seems like only one side of the debate is fact checked

I've also noticed that even fact-checking is being weaponized for political reasons. A lot of the time it seems like only one side of the debate is fact checked, and only truly ridiculous claims against the other are debunked.

bordercases 6y ago
This has always been true in our lifetime.
tablespoon 6y ago
> I've also noticed that even fact-checking is being weaponized for political reasons. A lot of the time it seems like only one side of the debate is fact checked, and only truly ridiculous claims against the other are debunked. That could be because the fact checkers are biased, or it could be that one side pushes falsehoods more frequently or more strongly than the other.
- cwkoss 6y ago
  It would be interesting if a fact checker made an algorithmic method of deciding which facts to check. Would be a way of eliminating accusations of selection bias.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  This sounds good in the abstract but then you have really flagrant things like this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joe-biden-no-empathy/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joe-biden-no-empathy/ How is this a "mixture"? It's a cut-and-dry literal quote that the context does not change in any way.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Yeah that's embarrassing. They would have had better luck with "old men are assholes; film at 11!" Biden didn't say anything that we wouldn't expect to hear from 95% of men in their late 70s. The immediately preceding geriatric president was also considered something of an asshole.
  - willcipriano 6y ago
    "Claim: Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden once said he had "no empathy" for the plight of younger people." "What's True: In January 2018, Biden did say he had "no empathy" for the plight of younger people." "Rating: Mixed" Wow. What on earth were they thinking when they put this together?
    - tablespoon 6y ago
      > Wow. What on earth were they thinking when they put this together? Probably that words taken out of context can mean something different than when they're taken in context.
      - tjs8rj 6y ago
        I think more lines need to be drawn here. The claim is "did he say it" and the answer is "yes". If they wanted to fact check whether "Biden said he didn't care about young people in a disparaging way", that would be fine, but it also is just a moral judgement. The actual problem here is that Snopes doesn't apply this standard evenly. For a democrat, it "requires context", for a republican, it's just "100% true".
        tablespoon 6y ago
        > I think more lines need to be drawn here. The claim is "did he say it" and the answer is "yes". > If they wanted to fact check whether "Biden said he didn't care about young people in a disparaging way", that would be fine, but it also is just a moral judgement. But the literal claim "did he utter these words" is practically meaningless. By that standard, if you once said "I don't understand people who think the movie Battlefield Earth is great, it's a waste of time." I could say "tjs8rj said 'the movie Battlefield Earth is great,'" or "tjs8rj said 'I don't understand people,'" and you'd have to fact check that as a "yes," even though I inverted your meaning. What people really care about is what's was meant. > The actual problem here is that Snopes doesn't apply this standard evenly. For a democrat, it "requires context", for a republican, it's just "100% true". I'm not convinced that's actually the case.
  - Buttons840 6y ago
    They're answering the question: "Did U.S. Presidential Candidate Joe Biden Say He Had ‘No Empathy’ for the Plight of Younger People?" I mean, as far as I've seen, Joe Biden never said the words "no empathy" anywhere near the word "plight", so I guess the extremely literal cut-and-dry answer to the question is no. Yet, as you say, he did pretty much say that, but there is room for context, which the article does a pretty good job of presenting. People deserve to know the context and then judge the comment for themselves. Can I get a fact check on whether ahelwer said "all countries the US doesn't like deserve to fall"? Is it true that you once said that (in this very comment section, no less)? It is true, and it isn't true; a mixture.
    - riversflow 6y ago
      I mean I’d agree with that rationale iff it was applied consistently. Unfortunately it isn’t. According to Snopes, the sheriff saying the serial-killer in Georgia “had a bad day” is true.[1] Maybe I’m missing something but it seems like the exact same thing. [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bad-day-atlanta-shooting/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bad-day-atlanta-shooting/
      - Buttons840 6y ago
        Yeah. It seems both should be labeled the same.
    - ahelwer 6y ago
      This slimy, esoteric parsing of politician's words is indistinguishable from what you see from Trump supporters. Just take the L and move on. Trying to convince people they didn't hear what they understand they heard is how you lose trust, which might matter for something important - and is the entire point of this whole comment thread.
  - statstutor 6y ago
    I feel sad about Snopes, which used to be about exploring urban legends. It had a good sense of humour; it was delightful. I spent countless hours exploring it. From my recollection, it previously had no explicitly political content (unfortunately, it has been blocked from the Wayback Machine). I don't have any interest in what I see on the current version of snopes, which I guess must be following some money.
yeetawayhn 6y ago
Of equal importance is reading the actual citations. Sometimes the short conclusion is misleading of the quantity of evidence that goes the other direction.
statstutor 6y ago
> I've also noticed that even fact-checking is being weaponized for political reasons. I don't think fact-checking exists for any other reason. People like fact-checking that confirms their beliefs. Even if objectivity is possible in fact-checking, objectivity is not going to build your audience, nor find you clients.

bordercases 6y ago

This has always been true in our lifetime.

tablespoon 6y ago

> I've also noticed that even fact-checking is being weaponized for political reasons. A lot of the time it seems like only one side of the debate is fact checked, and only truly ridiculous claims against the other are debunked. That could be because the fact checkers are biased, or it could be that one side pushes falsehoods more frequently or more strongly than the other.

cwkoss 6y ago
It would be interesting if a fact checker made an algorithmic method of deciding which facts to check. Would be a way of eliminating accusations of selection bias.
ahelwer 6y ago
This sounds good in the abstract but then you have really flagrant things like this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joe-biden-no-empathy/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joe-biden-no-empathy/ How is this a "mixture"? It's a cut-and-dry literal quote that the context does not change in any way.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Yeah that's embarrassing. They would have had better luck with "old men are assholes; film at 11!" Biden didn't say anything that we wouldn't expect to hear from 95% of men in their late 70s. The immediately preceding geriatric president was also considered something of an asshole.
- willcipriano 6y ago
  "Claim: Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden once said he had "no empathy" for the plight of younger people." "What's True: In January 2018, Biden did say he had "no empathy" for the plight of younger people." "Rating: Mixed" Wow. What on earth were they thinking when they put this together?
  - tablespoon 6y ago
    > Wow. What on earth were they thinking when they put this together? Probably that words taken out of context can mean something different than when they're taken in context.
    - tjs8rj 6y ago
      I think more lines need to be drawn here. The claim is "did he say it" and the answer is "yes". If they wanted to fact check whether "Biden said he didn't care about young people in a disparaging way", that would be fine, but it also is just a moral judgement. The actual problem here is that Snopes doesn't apply this standard evenly. For a democrat, it "requires context", for a republican, it's just "100% true".
      - tablespoon 6y ago
        > I think more lines need to be drawn here. The claim is "did he say it" and the answer is "yes". > If they wanted to fact check whether "Biden said he didn't care about young people in a disparaging way", that would be fine, but it also is just a moral judgement. But the literal claim "did he utter these words" is practically meaningless. By that standard, if you once said "I don't understand people who think the movie Battlefield Earth is great, it's a waste of time." I could say "tjs8rj said 'the movie Battlefield Earth is great,'" or "tjs8rj said 'I don't understand people,'" and you'd have to fact check that as a "yes," even though I inverted your meaning. What people really care about is what's was meant. > The actual problem here is that Snopes doesn't apply this standard evenly. For a democrat, it "requires context", for a republican, it's just "100% true". I'm not convinced that's actually the case.
- Buttons840 6y ago
  They're answering the question: "Did U.S. Presidential Candidate Joe Biden Say He Had ‘No Empathy’ for the Plight of Younger People?" I mean, as far as I've seen, Joe Biden never said the words "no empathy" anywhere near the word "plight", so I guess the extremely literal cut-and-dry answer to the question is no. Yet, as you say, he did pretty much say that, but there is room for context, which the article does a pretty good job of presenting. People deserve to know the context and then judge the comment for themselves. Can I get a fact check on whether ahelwer said "all countries the US doesn't like deserve to fall"? Is it true that you once said that (in this very comment section, no less)? It is true, and it isn't true; a mixture.
  - riversflow 6y ago
    I mean I’d agree with that rationale iff it was applied consistently. Unfortunately it isn’t. According to Snopes, the sheriff saying the serial-killer in Georgia “had a bad day” is true.[1] Maybe I’m missing something but it seems like the exact same thing. [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bad-day-atlanta-shooting/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bad-day-atlanta-shooting/
    - Buttons840 6y ago
      Yeah. It seems both should be labeled the same.
  - ahelwer 6y ago
    This slimy, esoteric parsing of politician's words is indistinguishable from what you see from Trump supporters. Just take the L and move on. Trying to convince people they didn't hear what they understand they heard is how you lose trust, which might matter for something important - and is the entire point of this whole comment thread.
- statstutor 6y ago
  I feel sad about Snopes, which used to be about exploring urban legends. It had a good sense of humour; it was delightful. I spent countless hours exploring it. From my recollection, it previously had no explicitly political content (unfortunately, it has been blocked from the Wayback Machine). I don't have any interest in what I see on the current version of snopes, which I guess must be following some money.

yeetawayhn 6y ago

Of equal importance is reading the actual citations. Sometimes the short conclusion is misleading of the quantity of evidence that goes the other direction.

statstutor 6y ago

> I've also noticed that even fact-checking is being weaponized for political reasons. I don't think fact-checking exists for any other reason. People like fact-checking that confirms their beliefs. Even if objectivity is possible in fact-checking, objectivity is not going to build your audience, nor find you clients.