Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

poynter.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 109 posts

Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

#11

Post by pltk-acct »

jtbayly wrote: post #7
deogeo wrote: post #4

Earlier 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-...

The Federalist is a highly partisan blog. I don't think it's fair to compare the two, the equivalent would be bringing out pieces from the YoungTurks stating that people are misrepresenting their opinions.

Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

#13

Post by goldcd »

deogeo wrote: post #4
sarcasmatwork wrote: post #2

Good! 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.

Glad you asked - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/on-tap/ This is demonstrably bullshit. It does work. Many years ago I got a bee-in-my-bonnet over this and tried to correct them - and got told to ~"piss off". God, I'd almost manage to push this out of my mind, until your post.. Just to address the article (to you, another uncaring audience) - "However, tapping does nothing to reincorporate the carbon dioxide into the solution, the key element to preventing the dread foam-out." First part true, second part not. Foaming is caused by the CO2 bubbles expanding when pressure is released and taking liquid above them out the top of your can. Few hard taps on the bottom detach the CO2 bubbles and cause them to all go to the top (no re-absorption - that will simply take time). So few hard taps on the bottom (not the side), then opening your can, will still cause a loss of CO2 - but not the foaming. Somebody must have 2 cans near them to try this with right now. Shake both for as long as you want, few hard taps on the bottom of one (finger-tip with almost painful force) - and then just open them both and compare. It Works.

Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

#14

Post by jtbayly »

fwip wrote: post #8
jtbayly wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The part that says a satire article is "false."

The part labelling the following sentence a "claim":

"CNN invested in an industrial-sized washing machine to help their journalists and news anchors spin the news before publication."

The part where they instructed FB to stop allowing people to see this satire piece because it would spread misinformation.

The part where they knew their actions would go a long ways to potentially destroying the ad-based satire publication.

That's not fact checking.

Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

#15

Post by Zecar »

Pharmakon wrote: post #5
Zecar wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Absolutely. Last time I looked they refused to update their fact check about Nathan Phillips false claims of Vietnam service.

Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

#16

Post by jtbayly »

pltk-acct wrote: post #11
jtbayly wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go: http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/02/facebook-apologizes-for-...

The Federalist is a highly partisan blog. I don't think it's fair to compare the two, the equivalent would be bringing out pieces from the YoungTurks stating that people are misrepresenting their opinions.

First of all, I don't have any idea what you're talking about when you talk about "comparing." I'm not comparing any two things.

Secondly, partisan or not, the Federalist was not the one Snopes was unfairly attacking. They simply reported on the effects of the Snopes attack on a satire site.

Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

#17

Post by notlisted »

jtbayly wrote: post #7
deogeo wrote: post #4

Earlier 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-...

Funny! A link to a satire site (at least I hope it's satire?) to prove Snopes has issues.

Stories Snopes fact-checked from that 'Christian Satire Site': https://www.snopes.com/tag/babylon-bee/

At least half of them would be believed by those who trust the Federalist.

Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

#18

Post by godman_8 »

Great...this is bringing the crazies out of hiding. Wether or not you disagree with facts, Snopes and others provide their reasoning and sources.

If you don't like the truth, at least look at why they draw the conclusions.

However, if the crazies actually did that, they most likely wouldn't be crazies anymore, and yet here we are.

Note: I ended up having to replace a word with "crazies" because the real snowflakes couldn't handle it.

Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

#19

Post by joshuamorton »

goldcd wrote: post #13
deogeo wrote: post #4

Earlier 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.

Glad you asked - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/on-tap/ This is demonstrably bullshit. It does work. Many years ago I got a bee-in-my-bonnet over this and tried to correct them - and got told to ~"piss off". God, I'd almost manage to push this out of my mind, until your post.. Just to address the article (to you, another uncaring audience) - "However, tapping does nothing to reincorporate the carbon dioxide into t…

So you're arguing that saying "tapping the side of a soda can will not prevent bubbles" is bullshit because thwacking the bottom of the can as hard as you can will?

This feels like you're being unreasonably uncharitable.

Re: Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

#20

Post by elxx »

jtbayly wrote: post #14
fwip wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The part that says a satire article is "false." The part labelling the following sentence a "claim": "CNN invested in an industrial-sized washing machine to help their journalists and news anchors spin the news before publication." The part where they instructed FB to stop allowing people to see this satire piece because it would spread misinformation. The part where they knew their actions would go a long ways to po…

I don't see how this is on Snopes at all. Facebook users (and even some news organizations) fall for The Onion articles all the time and report them as fact. Snopes debunks them - that's their job, that's what they have always done. Facebook failed to accommodate for satirical publications when they introduced their "fake news" flagging. This is entirely their fault.
Post reply on HN