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

Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 417 posts

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#221

Post by p49k »

pembrook wrote: post #188
danso wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an example of what you're talking about: The original r/AskReddit thread ("What feels illegal, but isn't?"): https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/aszfh3/what_feel... The Buzzfeed repurposing of that thread ("19 Things That FEEL Illegal Even Though They Definitely Aren't"): https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephenlaconte/if-you-have-a-guilty... And a r/mildlyinfuriating thread about Buzzfeed's repurposing ("Buzz…

So using your logic, I'm totally free to copy-paste the entirety of a New York Times article onto my website and sell ads on that content...as long as I credit the author? I think the lawyers of the NYT may have a different opinion about that. The fact is, Buzzfeed was able to get away with stealing content from reddit and selling ads on it because no reddit user was ever going to hire a lawyer to sue them over it. A…

That's not what Buzzfeed is doing, though - they are taking individual quotes and snippets from the Reddit thread and weaving them into a narrative and description written in their own words. You could in fact do the same with a NYT article and it wouldn't be copyright infringement; there are many, many publications which create such articles based on mainstream news sources.

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#222

Post by jccalhoun »

pembrook wrote: post #144

All modern media companies today have been built by using these kinds of shady "growth hacks." Doesn't anybody see the irony of Buzzfeed calling out a fellow media company for using such tactics? Buzzfeed's entire growth strategy for years was copy-pasting content from trending reddit threads and turning them into "listicles" with clickbait headlines, then feeding them into Facebook. Was that not also plagiarism?

Agreed. On a near daily basis I run across articles that are just summaries of things from other places. Sometimes it is a game of telephone where one site summarizes a second site that has summarized a third site.

But let's not kid ourselves that this is only online. It happens in all news media. One person breaks a story then all the other news outlets just repeat the original story sometimes with their own followup quotes.

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#223

Post by aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA »

kstrauser wrote: post #210

I really want to like Snopes, but I'm not convinced that they weigh evidence correctly. For example, they debunked the myth that Marilyn Monroe had 6 toes. First, I don't believe that she did . Or even care, for that matter. But at the time, one of their "facts" was that if she'd had a toe removed, she'd basically have to learn to walk all over again because it would throw her balance completely off. (Note: the artic…

A coworker of mine had his big toe amputated after it was crushed while moving a refrigerator. Afterwards he had no problems and remained very athletic.

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#224

Post by qkqk »

qkqk wrote: post #154
unanswered wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was not the original lab leak article. The original article called it definitely false and racist.

Right, you can tell by the publication date (it's in the URL), why I say "they reference a medical journal article from 1.5 years ago as evidence." What you said is not true, and their position hasn't shifted (they're critical of those that did). https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/07/16/lab-leak-evidence/

That is false, and I linked to a new, different article, not a "retconned" one. They didn't change their stance, they criticize those that do, and reference a medical journal article from 1.5 years ago as evidence.

As you said, you agree with the evidence they cite...

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#225

Post by gmadsen »

colechristensen wrote: post #202
ramraj07 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m still struggling to understand why they’d want to block that. Edit: on re-reading I realize it’s so that they don’t get caught for this plagiarism since their modus operandi was plagiarize first rewrite slowly.

>plagiarize first rewrite slowly Obviously publishing work that isn't your own is wrong, but "plagiarize then rewrite" is a very effective method of developing a creative skill. There is a question about when the transformation really becomes "yours". An example: Radiohead - "Creep" was a tranformation for The Hollies "The Air that I Breathe", Radiohead later went to sue Lana Del Rey for "Get Free" which seemingly wa…

to the non expert ear, Get Free sounds much much more similar to Creep, than Creep does to "The Air that I Breathe"

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#226

Post by kortilla »

kenjackson wrote: post #203
tablespoon wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Later in the day, they changed the headline to be something like "Insurgents invade Capital building", but did not change the 10AM timestamp up top. One had to read the article to find the update timestamp. News websites really need to stop continuously rewriting their articles. It's a PITA if you want to cite them as a source, then all the sudden what you cited isn't there. I've had NY Times articles get completel…

This isn’t any different than Wikipedia. If the news article was more like a Wiki (with revision history), would that be sufficient for you?

Sure, but they need to be clear that they aren’t committed to it being an accurate story at the time of publish (expectation of a newspaper).

If they want to be an encyclopedia then be one.

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#227

Post by aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA »

Back in the mid-1990s I had created a webpage about an exclusive tourist destination, which included several digitized photos I had taken.

Snopes stole those photos for their page and never credited me, even after I emailed asking them to.

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#228

Post by filoleg »

kenjackson wrote: post #203
tablespoon wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Later in the day, they changed the headline to be something like "Insurgents invade Capital building", but did not change the 10AM timestamp up top. One had to read the article to find the update timestamp. News websites really need to stop continuously rewriting their articles. It's a PITA if you want to cite them as a source, then all the sudden what you cited isn't there. I've had NY Times articles get completel…

This isn’t any different than Wikipedia. If the news article was more like a Wiki (with revision history), would that be sufficient for you?

> If the news article was more like a Wiki (with revision history), would that be sufficient for you?

Not the person you were replying to, but I would love this, yeah. That changelog proposal being implemented would be more than enough to resolve most of the issues I have with publications that silently alter contents of their articles after they were originally published (without indicating that an alteration took place).

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#229

Post by tablespoon »

kortilla wrote: post #226
kenjackson wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t any different than Wikipedia. If the news article was more like a Wiki (with revision history), would that be sufficient for you?

Sure, but they need to be clear that they aren’t committed to it being an accurate story at the time of publish (expectation of a newspaper). If they want to be an encyclopedia then be one.

> Sure, but they need to be clear that they aren’t committed to it being an accurate story at the time of publish (expectation of a newspaper).

You're misreading the situation. The media doesn't have a crystal ball any more than you or I do. They can be "committed to it being an accurate story at the time of publish," but then new stuff happens after that time, or they have the time to go into more depth. The news isn't just about accuracy, it's also about timeliness.

Re: Co-founder of Snopes was writing plagiarized articles under a fake name

#230

Post by krapp »

betwixthewires wrote: post #184
stimpson_j_cat wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see Snopes as pure, unadulterated bias Oh, they said Trump told the truth when he said "Murders this year have spiked 27% in Philadelphia." https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/24/donald-tru... Why didn't anyone remind them of their bias before this got published?

I love how ever single reply to the parent mentions Trump, as if anyone that thinks snopes is full of shit must be a Trump supporter. It's almost as if there's a group of people out there who all think exactly alike and knee jerk to defend these organizations out of some strange sense of loyalty.

>I love how ever single reply to the parent mentions Trump, as if anyone that thinks snopes is full of shit must be a Trump supporter.

Because there was no widespread vocal opposition to Snopes until Trump supporters started calling it "fake news" for debunking his claims about his inauguration turnout. Now they come out of the woodwork with every mention of the site to call it liberal propaganda and whatnot. No one else cares about the site that much - it's entertainment at best.

Post reply on HN