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

21–30 of 109 posts

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

#21

Post by gpvos »

jtbayly wrote: post #16
pltk-acct wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#22

Post by [deleted] »

jtbayly wrote: post #16
pltk-acct wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#23

Post by eli »

Zecar wrote: post #15
Pharmakon wrote: post #5

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 part is wrong?

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

#24

Post by mmcclure »

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…

This text, which comprises about 50% of the Snopes article:

> Although it should have been obvious that the Babylon Bee piece was just a spoof of the ongoing political brouhaha over alleged news media “bias” and “fake news,” some readers missed that aspect of the article and interpreted it literally. But the site’s footer gives away the Babylon Bee’s nature by describing it as “Your Trusted Source For Christian News Satire,” and the site has been responsible for a number of other (usually religious-themed) spoofs that have been mistaken for real news articles.

So, looking at your complaints again:

- The article _is_ false, it's just also satire, as Snopes points out.

- That is a claim. See above.

- Instructing FB on the truthfulness of media _was literally their job_.

- What are you talking about.

- Yes, they checked facts in this case.

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

#25

Post by RobAtticus »

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 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.

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

#27

Post by 51lver »

Zecar wrote: post #3
sarcasmatwork wrote: post #2

Good! 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.

Your bias is showing.

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

#28

Post by chias »

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.

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 you. This includes Snopes.

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

#29

Post by hbosch »

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…

Most things that are satire are also false.
Post reply on HN