3 ms·
Interestingly, Mussolini getting the trains to run on time is a myth as well. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/loco-motive/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/
by a_bonobo 5y ago
Interestingly, Mussolini getting the trains to run on time is a myth as well.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/loco-motive/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/loco-motive/
It's similar to how the Nazis claimed the Autobahn as their success, even though they were started under the Weimar Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsautobahn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsautobahn
- nerdponx 5y agoIs Snopes having a hard time with money? The article (on mobile) had two huge full-width ads that you had to scroll past, and a persistent banner ad at the bottom, and they're still asking for donations: https://files.catbox.moe/szanpo.jpeg https://files.catbox.moe/szanpo.jpeg https://files.catbox.moe/j9qerx.jpeg https://files.catbox.moe/j9qerx.jpeg I don't mind them trying to fund themselves, but those aren't exactly vetted "ethical ads", are they?
- nebula8804 5y agoYou say that yet even catbox.moe is asking for money. Go check their front page.
- nerdponx 5y agoBut the page isn't covered in user-hostile ads that rely on intensive surveillance and sharing your personal data with dozens of shady companies. Edit: Your comment really bothers me. At no point did I suggest that websites should not ask their users for money. I was wondering about and criticizing their apparently heavy use of user-abusive ads, while still asking users directly for money. Usually on the Web we see one or the other but not both.
- nebula8804 5y agoI sorry to disturb you. It was not my intent. I just disagree about the seriousness of the ads displayed in your example. An ad for Whisky and/or Walgreens(a pharmacy) don't seem too bad compared to other ads I have seen. Snopes probably gets a lot of bandwidth (and probably attacks) just due to them being very mainstream.