3 ms·

Steve Jobs's HIV diagnosis: https://file.wikileaks.org/file/steve-jobs-hiv/steve-jobs-hiv-2.jpg https://file.wikileaks.org/file/steve-jobs-hiv/steve-jobs-hi...

• beaconstudios 5y ago
  in context: > https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_purported_HIV_medical_status_results,_2008 https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_purported_HIV_medical_... > Due to the contradictory dates, possible evidence of forgery, strong motivations for fabrication, and few motivations for a legitimate revelation, the images should not be taken at face value. I would encourage anybody to read the source document above to see the whole analysis, but it's pretty impartial and paints a sceptical picture.
  • 0110101001 5y ago
    And then, as OP requested, "compare that to the track record of the organizations compared to" and try think of a time the NY Times, Guardian, ProPublica or even Buzzfeed published a hoax but decided it was worth publishing so long as they put a disclaimer on it saying "this probably isn't real."
    • beaconstudios 5y ago
      fact-checking organisations like Snopes do that all the time. I don't see anything wrong with journalists addressing a claim, investigating it and declaring in their opinions that it's probably not true. What, specifically, is wrong with that? The fact that you posted the image without referencing the article that claims it's probably a hoax makes me think you were intentionally trying to mislead people.