Live data from Hacker News

Snopes pulls out of its fact-checking partnership with Facebook

poynter.org

31–40 of 109 posts

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

#31
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here's the takeaway on that page now:

"It’s difficult to determine at this point whether Phillips has deliberately misrepresented the nature of his service, whether he has been so vague and ambiguous in many of his descriptions (unintentionally or otherwise) that misinterpretations have entered his narrative, or whether he has tried to be accurate but may have just occasionally slipped up in his many, many hours of conversation and sometimes neglected to include the qualifiers about his service that he has used in many other videos and press interviews. Nonetheless, at times it has certainly sounded as though Phillips was trying to foster the impression that he had both served during the Vietnam War and had been deployed to Vietnam at some point during his service, even if he didn’t literally say so."

Which part of it is inaccurate?

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

#32
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 if I do something different than what is described ("tapping the side"), I will get the desired effect? So they aren't wrong, they just decided not to exhaustively try out every method of tapping on a soda can? Tapping-on-the-bottom-with-near-painful-force is definitely not what people mean when they colloquially claim tapping on a soda can settles it down.

Hold on. You're right. They say side, I say bottom - and it might make a difference. To the average reader it reads the same. I'd be fine if both approaches were covered and compared. Googling provides results all over the place - I was using hyperbole for the 'nearly painful tap', but just to differentiate the methodology for tapping once lightly. Also results seem to vary massively when looked at some people say it works, some people say it doesn't, some people say aspartame surface-tension is related (maybe it is, I was using Diet Coke). My annoyance was just that there was a statement out there that says "This topic is false". No way to query, qualify, anything.

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

#33
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm getting flashbacks (and yes, I know this shouldn't be important, and I should let it go) - but I can't. That -3 rating is causing flashbacks... I did not say "as hard as you can" - my approach is similar to a finger-flick you might have inflicted on a fellow child in your youth. Speed not force.

Backing up a bit. I think most people who come across this topic want to know "I've got a shaken can - and I don't want to open it as it'll go everywhere. Is there anything I can do?"

My take is that "Yes there is" - and whilst that snopes article is out there, a lot of people think there isn't. Snopes is a little opaque and whilst there are many issues with peer-reviewed articles - their complete lack of desire to engage really annoys me. I don't expect them to be faultless - but maybe just having somewhere you could submit a comment, a video, something would be a move in the right direction.

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

#34
post #28
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 is an example of a false fact-check by Snopes: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mississippi-fractions/ This is intentional. Click the "More information about this page" at the bottom of the article and you will be directed here, where they explain it: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-authority/ In a nutshell, Snopes wants you to stop assuming things that you read online are true because of who's telling…

But it also says, in the very article about Mississippi fractions:

> Snopes.com has long been engaged in the battle against misinformation, an effort we could not sustain without support from our audience. Producing reliable fact-checking and thorough investigative reporting requires significant resources. We pay writers, editors, web developers, and other staff who work tirelessly to provide you with an invaluable service: evidence-based, contextualized analysis of facts. Help us keep Snopes.com strong. Make a direct contribution today. Learn More. Donate with PayPal

Seems a bit disingenuous to ask for money to fund the battle against misinformation on a page that almost entirely consists of misinformation.

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

#35
post #21
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In what way was Snopes attacking that site? It's just a short, factual note that it's a satire article and website. Now, what Facebook did with that was not good, and I can see why Snopes would want to get out of such a system.

Except that’s not why they got out, is it?

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

#36
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm getting flashbacks (and yes, I know this shouldn't be important, and I should let it go) - but I can't. That -3 rating is causing flashbacks... I did not say "as hard as you can" - my approach is similar to a finger-flick you might have inflicted on a fellow child in your youth. Speed not force. Backing up a bit. I think most people who come across this topic want to know "I've got a shaken can - and I don't want…

Wait. Your issue with snopes is that they said "there is no meaningful evidence that [x] is true" and you're mad that when you said "but I have anecdata" they weren't interested?

that's not how this works...

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

#37
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What problem do you find there? I also hope that your response to a request for support in favor of a very strong claim isn’t to vaguely reference a single example. The fact that the example seems nonexistent makes it a bit worse, but not by much.

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

#38

When hyperbole, exaggeration, rounding, jokes are called false and lies, its not a fact checker its a political tool.

When hyperbole, exaggeration, rounding and jokes are repackaged, decontextualized and repeated as sober truth, they become false / lies.

Do you have examples of Snopes going out of their way to label hyperbole, etc. as lies in a rhetorical / dishonest manner? Or do you have examples of them clarifying what's hyperbole vs reality?

I ask because people usually produce examples of the latter.

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

#39
it is wild to me how many people are in this thread saying "Snopes is partisan" or "Snopes is biased" or "Snopes is not a real fact checker" and who are also entirely unable to provide any actual evidence.

A link to an article on the Federalist (laughably partisan) is not "evidence" any more than pointing out that they have fact-checked satirical sites is. https://reddit.com/r/atetheonion is a thing for a reason, and in every post about Satire Snopes goes out of their way to highlight that they are responding to Satire.

Your own biases are showing and it's kind of a bad look.

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

#40
post #14
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 can kind of see where you're attempting to go with this, but even then, it seems more like the fault is on Facebook and not Snopes. At best, maybe create a "false-by-means-of-satire" (to differentiate true or true-ish ones that are satire) flag so that if a site is going to just scrape the result ("false"), it doesn't screw with perception, but again, that's on Facebook.

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

it doesn't say that a satire article is "false", it says the "claim" is.

> 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."

I'm confused here. Why is this an issue? They are going to fact check whether the claim is true or not. In this case, appears rather than prove CNN didn't, they're going with the "it's satire, people" approach. As is a vast majority of their content, it isn't about the site hosting the content so much as debunking the "claim" to include the initial purpose of debunking/confirming urban legends.

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

They instructed Facebook? Seemed more like Snopes funnels FB data and FB does with it what it sees fit.

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

They provided data. Again, kind of on Facebook in this particular case.

> That's not fact checking.

I think they do a fine job fact checking. Where they probably overstepped was in thinking or at least agreeing to the prospect that their data was ready to be made sense of by a non-human user: I can go onto the linked article and can easily infer that CNN bought a washing machine to spin news is bogus and I can also get from it very obviously that the original post it comes from is a joke in the spirit of The Onion, Hard Times, or any other parody site.

And actually, back to the "false-by-means-of-satire": I don't think that'd work. Reason being is that I imagine it is the message "CNN buys washer to spin news" that is labeled as false. Whether someone linking to the original parody or if I created jsgosnews.cc and copied the original's content as a quote (with attribution. Actually, just kidding, because most of these "fake news" sites don't include original attribution as it'd probably expose themselves as bogus too easily) and linked to that. We know the original was stated in jest, but what if mine is claimed as if it was dead serious and that CNN really did this. How does the false, but satire work now?

Again, at least in my opinion, Snopes is doing it the right way. Maybe they need to rethink how (or even if they will ever again) be a fact checking data aggregation service, but I don't see a solution to allow it to truly be the be all, end all solution. So as such, I think they should just continue doing what they're doing.

Post reply on HN