Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook
1–10 of 109 posts
Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook
#2Good! Snopes != a fact checker.
Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook
#3Good! Snopes != a fact checker. https://outline.com/EcMCbp
Yeah not even close, they're notoriously biased. EDIT: Actually I don't even think biased is a fair characterization, "maliciously hell bent on being a font of propaganda with the intent that the ends justify the means" is probably a more accurate way to put it.
Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook
#4Good! Snopes != a fact checker. https://outline.com/EcMCbp
Examples of false or misleading fact-checks by Snopes would be far more persuasive. That article only calls into question the neutrality of the people behind Snopes, but for all I know they could still put their biases behind them when at work.
Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook
#5Good! Snopes != a fact checker. https://outline.com/EcMCbp
Yeah not even close, they're notoriously biased. EDIT: Actually I don't even think biased is a fair characterization, "maliciously hell bent on being a font of propaganda with the intent that the ends justify the means" is probably a more accurate way to put it.
Could you link to some relevant examples?
Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook
#6Good! Snopes != a fact checker. https://outline.com/EcMCbp
Yeah not even close, they're notoriously biased. EDIT: Actually I don't even think biased is a fair characterization, "maliciously hell bent on being a font of propaganda with the intent that the ends justify the means" is probably a more accurate way to put it.
Can you give some examples?
Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook
#7Good! Snopes != a fact checker. https://outline.com/EcMCbp
Examples of false or misleading fact-checks by Snopes would be far more persuasive. That article only calls into question the neutrality of the people behind Snopes, but for all I know they could still put their biases behind them when at work.
Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Examples of false or misleading fact-checks by Snopes would be far more persuasive. That article only calls into question the neutrality of the people behind Snopes, but for all I know they could still put their biases behind them when at work.
Here you go: http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/02/facebook-apologizes-for-...
1. It's the federalist, so okay. Here's the link to the "misleading" Snopes story in question: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-washing-machine/
2. They said that a satire story was not true, which, of course it isn't. They said it was satire, which it is.
3. Facebook automatically took action against the fact-checked site, the very agreement that Snopes is now pulling out of.
Which of those bullet points means that Snopes is bad?
Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook
#9[deleted]
Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Examples of false or misleading fact-checks by Snopes would be far more persuasive. That article only calls into question the neutrality of the people behind Snopes, but for all I know they could still put their biases behind them when at work.
Here you go: http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/02/facebook-apologizes-for-...
[deleted]