28 ms·
Snopes has been pwnd. It now adheres to the standard of literal truth with a political bias. So if someone posts “Bernie Sanders has 30,000 at a rally” (true) b
by lowbloodsugar 1y ago
Snopes has been pwnd. It now adheres to the standard of literal truth with a political bias. So if someone posts “Bernie Sanders has 30,000 at a rally” (true) but the image is of a different (also true) rally but on a different date, then Snopes just says “it’s false”. Not “true, but the image is wrong”. Not informative, like “Bernie did have 30,000 people attend but this image is from XYZ”. Just says FALSE! Same here.
- mikem170 1y agoThey've always seemed informative and do a good job of showing their sources. How big a deal is the single-word true/false judgement for an ambiguous claim if all the relevant details are summarized?
- lowbloodsugar 1y agoThey weren’t.
- mikem170 1y agoIs this [0] the Snopes article you were talking about, on the Bernie Sander rally? They rate it "mostly true" and in the summary mentioned the true attendance and the false photo, just like you said they should have. I don't get what you are saying. They seem on the ball. [0] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/27000-people-came-to-a-bernie-sanders-rally-in-california/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/27000-people-came-to-a-ber...