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

41–50 of 109 posts

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

#41

Post by goldcd »

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…

Right. You've made me do it. Tomorrow I'm buying Coke-Zero cans, chilling them, I will shake together, toss coin tap heads on the bottom, and open simultaneously (providing I can work out how to hold my phone and two cans at the same time) and will post unedited results on a youtube link. ALL I ask is whoever downvoted me, at least checks back. F'it - I really don't care. I've been an oppressed minority for so long it doesn't even matter. :) (I can't believe how wound up I'm getting over this - but baby-steps. I will build your trust until you elect me your benevolent dictator. It'll all work out in the end)

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

#42

Post by jawnv6 »

goldcd wrote: post #32
RobAtticus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It might? Your OP was very specific on the subject and you seem aware that the side is inappropriate: Few hard taps on the bottom detach the CO2 bubbles and cause them to all go to the top few hard taps on the bottom (not the side), few hard taps on the bottom of one (finger-tip with almost painful force)

The actual claim on the site: Claim: Tapping the side of a soda can will prevent its contents from foaming over when you open it.

I don't think you're as vehemently committed to rigorous fact-checking as your little anecdote would have us believe.

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

#43

Post by goldcd »

zaksoup wrote: post #36
goldcd wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I'm not saying Snopes is maliciously preventing "the truth" from being discovered. I love Snopes. I've sent countless "You're wrong because snopes links" to people. My humble concern is that if you find yourself disagreeing with something as trivial as "shaking a soda can" there seems to be no actual way of addressing the issue. And then if I can't address the pathetically mundane and boring... well how do they handle the complex?

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

#44

Post by cma »

chias wrote: post #28
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 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…

Still not a great example since it is a demonstration/joke page.

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

#45

Post by goldcd »

jawnv6 wrote: post #42
goldcd wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It might? Your OP was very specific on the subject and you seem aware that the side is inappropriate: Few hard taps on the bottom detach the CO2 bubbles and cause them to all go to the top few hard taps on the bottom (not the side), few hard taps on the bottom of one (finger-tip with almost painful force) The actual claim on the site: Claim: Tapping the side of a soda can will prevent its contents from foaming over w…

Well on your basis we could open an infinite number of variations. Tap on the bottom or the side. Tap on the side, whilst facing North. Tap on the side, whilst facing North, using a finger with red-nail-polish. Tap on the side, whilst facing North, using a finger with red-nail-polish, on the left hand of a woman born under the sign of The Dragon.

My point is that the specificity of the OP is down to Snopes, and I can't change that. They don't even provide these details. Maybe the side-tapper was born in the year of the pig, and that matters. My issue is mainly that they wish to be perceived as the source of all truth - and seemingly have NO interest in being corrected. Snopes never publishes any statement limiting their results, asking for further input, etc etc. Their 'thing' is just publishing absolutes. Nobody else does this.

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

#47

Post by paulddraper »

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.

Example 1: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mass-shootings-in-2018/

Q: Were None of 154 Mass Shootings in 2018 Committed by a Black Man, Illegal Alien, or Woman?

A: Mixture.

The answer should be entirely false. If you measure by suspects, two-thirds of shooters in the 154 shootings were black men. If you measure by convictions, there were zero mass shootings in 2018. By any measure you choose, the claim is incorrect, and probably by a very wide margin.

Example 2: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/united-states-lower-death-...

Claim: Between 2009 and 2015, the United States had a lower mass shootings death rate than several European countries.

Rating: Mixture

The analysis is extremely muddled, and claims that the European shootings were "outliers" and therefore presumably should not be counted, rather than relying on the law of large numbers.

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

#48

Post by redsky17 »

chias wrote: post #28
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 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…

This article in particular is in a section of the Snopes website that is intentionally false/misleading:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/category/lost-legends/

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

#49

Post by fitpolar »

0x262d wrote: post #46

fact checking has always been a silly, hopeless attempt to find a technocratic solution to fundamentally political problems.

It's a hopeless quest until AI reaches a certain level of objective interpretation.

Regarding humans, most people who are capable of researching truth without any bias, don't have a voice. Human history is riddled with partisan extremists presenting biased information as neutral and factual. Snopes is no exception.

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

#50

Post by Fauntleroy »

I can't believe the massive number of HN users here who are willingly throwing critical thinking under the bus just because of political bias. It's maddening that people are making the jump from "Snopes posted something possibly incorrect about soda cans" and "Snopes one time fact checked shitty satire" directly to "Snopes is untrustworthy".

Everything is imperfect, even fact checking groups. If you're going to throw them under the bus for these tiny errors, I sure hope you've already incinerated every computing device you own, because boy do you have some things to learn about them.

Post reply on HN