Figuring out how to pay very little and suck out a lot of value is what their business is built on.
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.
Presumably so that they can later say "snopes is always wrong and biased" when Snopes contradicts Breitbart's claims that Obama and the UN and Black Lives Matter are planning to burn down Central Park next weekend.
(actual thing a relative told me, actual breitbart story from summer 2015,for those HN users fortunate enough not to be exposed to the worst of the fake news epidemic)
Snopes claims that a meme (showing a picture of people, many of whom have red x over their faces, writing that everyone with a red x has been voted out of office) is true even though they admit
> Although memes are frequently grossly inaccurate, this one got the general idea and numbers correct (even if the persons actually pictured in the accompanying photograph are difficult or impossible to identify).
Some of the people with an x were not elected people and some did not get voted out. This meme is clearly false, yet Snopes calls it true.
There's a reason that they write more about each topic than merely the headline.
"snopes occasionally makes editorial decisions I disagree with" is not the same as "snopes is fake and unreliable".
Sorry, I must have missed it the first time, tell me again why you continue to rely on an overtly racist blog to be your arbiter of "ethics"?
It is both false and incorrect. Saying that "every one with an x has since been voted out of congress" When not every one with an x has since been voted out of congress is false. I mean even the article quotes a tweet listing 10 people who were incorrectly marked. You should see what Snopes does every time a right wing person says something not 100% correct.
> "snopes occasionally makes editorial decisions I disagree with" is not the same as "snopes is fake and unreliable".
Again, the Snopes article is blatantly false.
> Sorry, I must have missed it the first time, tell me again why you continue to rely on an overtly racist blog to be your arbiter of "ethics"?
Sorry, I missed why you think that I continue to rely on a racist blog to be my arbiter of ethics.
I'm not saying you're wrong but I'd love to hear your side of it.
The article is: "Is the EPA Allowing for the Approval of New Asbestos-Containing Products?" The original basis for their "Mostly True" conclusion http://archive.is/w834Y is this:
"The first, more generally, is that the EPA could have used the currently unfolding overhaul of the TSCA — which began at the end of the Obama administration and has continued along a very different path under Trump — to ban any new uses of asbestos, something that had been the case at the end of the last administration. Instead, they are explicitly allowing new uses, but with the caveat that the EPA first evaluate possible potential new uses based on “risk evaluation, select studies, and use the best available science.”
They link to this previous ban on "the use of asbestos in products that have not historically contained asbestos": https://archive.is/3F4CC which has been in place since 1989. In reality, the proposed EPA rule specifically says that this ban remains in place. The SNUR approval process replaces the free-for-all on unbanned asbestos products, not the existing ban. (The "at the end of the last administration" bit is also gratuitous politicization, the ban's three decades old.)
Now here's how they describe the original version of their fact check in the blog post at https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/09/01/epa-suggested-change-... which tries to make the EPA look like the dishonest ones:
"On 11 June 2018, Snopes.com published a fact check titled “Is the EPA Allowing for the Approval of New Asbestos-Containing Products?” In that article, we rated the claim that “the Environmental Protection Agency will allow new asbestos products to enter the market” as “mostly true,” based on the fact that the EPA had proposed a new rule for asbestos that would (at first) block some currently unregulated but inactive uses of asbestos while (later) providing a framework for those unregulated uses’ formal approval should they pass a safety review."
This is a broadly accurate description of the proposed rule, but as we've seen it's not what the original article said. They then go on to make it look like the EPA is playing dirty tricks with the definition of "new uses" by "defining this term in a legal sense, based on a 1991 court ruling, as “asbestos products that were not being manufactured, processed or imported” as of 12 July 1989". In reality, the EPA were pointing out Snopes' own dishonest conflation of the narrow legal sense in which "new uses" were banned previously with the kinds of usage covered by the Significant New Use Rule. Next, they justify keeping the original conclusion based on this argument:
"Both of these objections, which we have addressed in an update to our original post, present an incomplete view of the controversy. Instead, they mask the fact that the proposed legislation allows a pathway for certain old (and inactive) uses of asbestos to return to the market with the EPA’s blessing. The EPA, via the publication of two documents, laid out a process that allows for uses of asbestos that have been effectively dead (thanks to litigation and health risks that their use carries), to be granted official approval using a safety review that does not allow scientists to consider a considerable bulk of information demonstrating asbestos’ cancer risk."
This is really tendentious. The new rule is (intentionally) terrible for anyone who wants to manufacture or import asbestos products covered by it. They have to contact the EPA 90 days in advance and essentially prove that their proposed use is safe. If the EPA drags their feet on responding or decides there's not enough evidence, they can't go ahead. The EPA have indicated that it's unlikely anything would meet this standard. Even if a company got past this they'd still get sued by private litigants. Finally, the part about excluding information from safety assessments is based on this which looks totally wrong:
"The second problem, more specifically, concerns the way in which the EPA has proposed to evaluate that risk. In May 2018, the EPA published a document known as the “Problem Formulation of the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos,” which establishes the scientific approach the EPA will take in evaluating these new uses. Significantly, their approach will not include information from existing, or “legacy” uses of asbestos, despite the significant body of work around health risks stemming from those uses"
The EPA document in question https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-06/documents... just says that they're only assessing the risks of asbestos uses that are currently ongoing. It says absolutely nothing about excluding evidence from historic uses of asbestos in general; they just won't publish any conclusions about their safety. It also means that this is totally irrelevant to the SNUR which is entirely about those historical uses. (Which makes trying to continue those uses an even dicier proposition. The SNUR means companies have to wait for the EPA to complete their risk assessment and hope it somehow turns out positive.)
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.
Since humans are imperfect, a site like Snopes can not exist.
Similar to Apple claiming "it just works", you better make sure it works. Or Google proclaiming "don't be evil". Etc.
My Mac got a kernel panic yesterday. My response was not to swear off Apple products forever.
Yet your response is to downvote everything you disagree with?
Not swearing off Apple products forever is your personal choice. Personally I agree with that. But I know plenty of people who DO choose to swear off Apple products when something doesn't work. That's also their choice, and I don't have a problem with that.
No? Then no, their reaction to something not working is not to immediately swear off that entire product category forever. Because, sooner or later, everything fails to work correctly in some fashion.
the ultimate effect of fact-checking will be to reinforce the power of mainstream, well-established news sources, which is all well and good unless you think they consciously choose which facts they share and how they frame them in a way that goes against your interests, which I believe is often true (and plenty of people agree with me). then it falls back to being a failed technocratic solution to a political problem very suddenly.
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.
Please cite some of these "partisan extremist" examples from Snopes.
Just saying that humans have an extremely poor track record at compromising information for political gain. Anything would be better at this point, you can't get any worse.
I prefer an aggregate. Then I can derive what I think is the truth.
Trust is learned, anyway. Except for children— they often do as a default until a point in their lives.
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.
Snopes claimed that Phillips hadn't claimed that he was a Vietnam veteran until the 24th of January, when a Twitter post became popular with that information. Apparently these clips were found on Phillips' Facebook page. You would expect a fact-checking website to check facts. At least check their Facebook page.
This isn't a perfect example of what you're asking for examples of, but it is a very recent one, where relying on snopes would've kept you misinformed.
The video was found on the page NativeYouthAlliance, not Nathan Phillips's personal page. It's also something like a year old, and a quick skim shows that this page posts a lot of videos. I for one do not expect Snopes to watch every single video posted to the facebook page of a youth alliance on the off chance that Phillips will say something relevant in it.
I don't know what the page said originally, but it looks like this facebook video didn't even give them cause to update their "Unproven" rating or the "What's True" and "What's False" sections of this rating.
In fact, if anything it demonstrates that Snopes reacts to new information coming to light exactly as you'd expect them to: they update their article accordingly and in a timely fashion.
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.
> 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.
Q: Were None of 154 Mass Shootings in 2018 Committed by a Black Man, Illegal Alien, or Woman?
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.
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.
But they literally say exactly this. Do you immediately stop reading after just the one word next to the graphic? Do the rest of the words mean nothing?
Yes, it's still marked as "Mixture". This is an example of where a different slant is given than what the facts.
"According to Snopes, it's somewhat true that none of 154 mass shootings in 2018 where committed by a black man, illegal alien, or woman."
"According to Snopes, it's somewhat true that Jews and Americans did not die in the Holocaust."
How is this a left-leaning opinion check?
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 that Snopes is bad?
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.
> 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.
And Snopes knew exactly what the consequences were on FB based on their “fact checking” work.
So a satire site making fun of how badly the mainstream news spins things got punished for “lying” because Snopes told Facebook they were lying.
If you read the original linked article, it is clear that they had to manually go in and select the articles that they believed were false and people shouldn’t be allowed to see anymore. They could have simply put up their article, without calling down FB’s wrath on the satire site, but they didn’t.
Are you saying you've never, ever seen anyone mistake an Onion piece for real news? I see it all the time, usually from uneducated people, racists, and new-age moonbats.
> 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.
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.
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.
Now, what Facebook did with that was not good, and I can see why Snopes would want to get out of such a system.
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.
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.
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.
This feels like you're being unreasonably uncharitable.
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.
that's not how this works...
It sounds like the reasons why you happily send "you're wrong because snopes" links are the reasons why you're unable to correct them and to me this sounds like the system is working correctly.
"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?
?? I don't know, perhaps the part where the guy is literally on video claiming to be a vietnam vet? You folks are utterly baffling. But go ahead and downvote.