More proof that snopes cannot be trusted...

[Roaming East]

Sounds like your head is up your ass. They go into great, lengthy detail regarding Nazi collaboration and statements he made about "enjoying" the Holocaust.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-soros-ss-nazi-germany/

 

[RockstarChris]

Snopes lost all credibility when they said Trump has small hands because clearly his hands are the size of an average Team Alpha Male member

 

[JosephDredd]

Yes, they do, by design. And none of it changes or excuses that he admitted on camera that he participated in the confiscation of property of the Jews and has continuously showed a lack of remorse. That is collaboration. Damage control years later is their excuse.

"Damage control" is explaining what he actually did because dishonest people are eager to spread lies. Got it.

You're so full of shit. You said they never addressed it and they did, in great detail. Don't try to pretend you're not talking complete shit.

 

[JosephDredd]

prove me wrong:

Your friend Ruprecht presented this one already:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-animals-hitler/

No bias huh? They fact check a random meme rather than the actual story about the MSM and the animals remark they got wrong. As a result their conlusion is MIXED.

Question for you - is this an honest fact check, especially in the absence of a fact check of the real news?

Maybe it's a joke claim and they have a more serious claim regarding the MSM getting it wrong? Nope, that's the only fact check they have done for this piece of news. Hitler = Trump association with a MIXED conclusion when the reality was that the MSM got it wrong, no ifs or buts.

---

You want another one? Here's them looking at click bait titles and saying "miscaptioned!" in order to avoid confirming them like the SJW snowflakes they are.

FACT CHECK: Did Justin Trudeau's Eyebrow Fall Off at the G7 Summit?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/justin-trudeaus-eyebrow/



^ it didn't fall off completely! Miscaptioned!



Desperation.

---

Snopes.com has long been engaged in the battle against misinformation

err why can't I whine about both? Because you said so? If they lie why can't I use that to support my position? Sounds like you're butthurt I'm presenting these links rather than you proving them false.


You have both admitted the numerical imbalance for their biased articles and have provided a narrative to explain it absolving them of the bias whilst explaining why the imbalance exists. Is that not right?


What? How does them having obvious employee political affiliations not strengthen my position on snopes? Is the Forbes article wrong in highlighting this concern? Or is it wrong because "I'm whingin about it"?


You are presenting this narrative on their behalf and it doesn't pass the sniff test. They don't admit to being biased in the first place. You two are also making assumptions on their fact checking methodology such as only looking at social media and CT's/fake news that appear there which they haven't described in any articles.

If you're upset that snopes addresses more right wing fake news, why aren't you upset that the right wing of it so much more fake news than the left?

You think snopes should address fake news disproportionately in order to make happy the people who like to consume fake news (you)?

You are insane.

 

[uppercutbus]

If you're upset that snopes addresses more right wing fake news, why aren't you upset that the right wing of it so much more fake news than the left?

You think snopes should address fake news disproportionately in order to make happy the people who like to consume fake news (you)?

You are insane.

You just dodged my entire post. good one.

Also why wouldn't they make value based judgements on what to cover? They don't even claim what you're claiming. They're in it for clicks and money. Insane position I know.

 

[BJ@LW&WW]

*click user name

*click ignore

 

[JosephDredd]

You just dodged my entire post. good one.

Also why wouldn't they make value based judgements on what to cover? They don't even claim what you're claiming. They're in it for clicks and money. Insane position I know.

Your entire post was nonsense.

You're asking them to address fake news disproportionately, do you realize that? Instead of fairly addressing fake news as it exists in the real world, you want them to make "value based judgements" and address fake news as though half of it were left-wing and half of it were right-wing. But it's not. The overwhelming majority of fake news is from the right and that's why the majority of their responses address right-wing fake news.

Just so we're clear: you're asking them to adopt a fact-checking protocol that ignores a great deal of fake news in order to placate the people who the majority of fake news is created for. There's no way you can take this position and pretend you're interested in an honest representation of the truth.

I'm sorry that your tender feelz are getting hurt by this, but instead of investing effort into attacking people trying to wade through the bullshit you may want to attack the people creating the bullshit in the first place.

 

[abiG]

Do You Trust Snopes? You Won’t After Reading This.

 

[uppercutbus]

Your entire post was nonsense.

Given you two examples of angled fact checking. Couldn't rebut them. Don't even try to address them.
Forbes link can't rebut.
Link showing clear lies, can't rebut.
"Your post was nonsense". Good one.

You're asking them to address fake news disproportionately, do you realize that?

What is their methodology? How are you sure it is what you say. 1:1 ratio of what "fake news" is out there on the internet and what they cover? Don't be stupid. That's not how they operate, therefore it has to be disproportionate. If you're going to be an arbiter of what's legit news you have to decide what to cover.

Instead of fairly addressing fake news as it exists in the real world, you want them to make "value based judgements" and address fake news as though half of it were left-wing and half of it were right-wing. But it's not. The overwhelming majority of fake news is from the right and that's why the majority of their responses address right-wing fake news.

It's got nothing to do with what I want, I am saying that's what they currently do. You saying their coverage is proportional to the amount of fake news out there. That makes no sense, they don't even say that's their methodology. I already gave you examples where the claim is manipulated to give a result they want, they clearly decide on what to cover and how to cover it. Then a link on their backtracking and lieing. Link on they employee affiliations. Quite convenient you just want to ignore all that and focus on "what I think", they can't be biased!

Also you're making assumptions that we know what their criteria on what to cover is. Where do they say they only decide to cover "fake news and CT's posted on social media"? A lot of their stuff is tabloid clickbait articles. Easily fact-checked in their favor because they focus on hyperbolic headlines they can nitpick.

Just so we're clear: you're asking them to adopt a fact-checking protocol that ignores a great deal of fake news in order to placate the people who the majority of fake news is created for.

Why would they ignore it? What protocol. We are not privy on how they decide. They can do what they want, you're just annoyed it's being called as biased and lopsided.

 

[JosephDredd]

You saying their coverage is proportional to the amount of fake news out there. That makes no sense, they don't even say that's their methodology.

The vast majority of fake news is from the right.

Snopes debunks more right-wing fake news than left-wing fake news.

A reasonable person: it makes sense that they address more fake news from the right because the right produces so much more fake news.

uppercutbus: How do you know that, they've never said that?! Manipulation! Secret methodology! Snopes is bias driven! They should pay disproportionate attention to debunking left-wing news!

*insane rambling*

Ah, yes, I see your point. It's totally devious of them to debunk right-wing fake news proportionately and for not looking harder to find right-wing employees who want to debunk right wing fake news.

 

[uppercutbus]

^ dodge noted.

Dodged the forbes article.
Dodged the examples and the other link because it's "insane rambling". Couldn't possible admit any bias on their part.

The vast majority of fake news is from the right.

You're making assumptions that we know what their criteria on what to cover is. Where do they say they only decide to cover "fake news and CT's posted on social media"? A lot of their stuff is tabloid clickbait articles. Easily fact-checked in their favor because they focus on hyperbolic headlines they can nitpick.

 

[JosephDredd]

^ dodge noted.

Dodged the forbes article because it's right wing fake news.
Dodged the examples and the other link because it's "insane rambling".

The things I'm "dodging" only have bearing on the discussion in your diseased mind.

You're making assumptions that we know what their criteria on what to cover is. Where do they say they only decide to cover "fake news and CT's posted on social media"? A lot of their stuff is tabloid clickbait articles. Easily fact-checked in their favor because they focus on hyperbolic headlines they can nitpick.

The vast majority of fake news is right wing and Snopes debunks more right-wing fake news than left-wing fake news.

Why do you think that is?

 

[uppercutbus]

The things I'm "dodging" only have bearing on the discussion in your diseased mind.

You made a direct assertion and I gave you two examples proving my point.

Also you "I will ignore these links that make snopes look bad".

The vast majority of fake news is right wing and Snopes debunks more right-wing fake news than left-wing fake news.

Why do you think that is?

100% of snopes employees are liberal with openly hostile comments on conservatives. Their fact-checking conclusions are often manipulated to favor a desired outcome. But their articles are just a mirror of what's posted on the internet and they choose things impartially and have no bias?

You're defense is that there's just more right wing fake news out there. Please.

I don't even care that they are biased, you care that they are called that though and need to defend their honor and integrity.

 

[TheFirstEMP]

This is Snopes. Literally. They do the same amount of research anyone can on Google.

 

[WalkenWouldOwn]

Do You Trust Snopes? You Won’t After Reading This.

*hovers*

www.foodbabe.com


Man your sources just keep getting better.

 

[uppercutbus]

This is Snopes. Literally. They do the same amount of research anyone can on Google.

It really is just web searches.

They no editorial oversight and do not follow standard journalistic procedures such as interviewing the authors of articles they are trying to debunk to get all sides of the story.

 

[Rational Poster]

Not new information. Snopes is a left-wing site. What they usually do is bring up something totally unrelated to the central charge to try to deflect the truth.

Like instead of asking if Soros collaborated with the Nazis, they make up this claim that people are saying he was an SS officer or whatever and call it false. Soros said in front of a camera that he participated in the confiscation of Jewish property. He said he felt no guilty about it and the Holocaust era was the best time in his life. This is fact. It's on video and yet snopes bends over backwards to say it's not true using the bs I pointed out.

Soros was 9 years old during WW2.

 

[JosephDredd]

You made a direct assertion and I gave you two examples proving my point.

Also you "I will ignore these links that make snopes look bad".


100% of snopes employees are liberal with openly hostile comments on conservatives. Their fact-checking conclusions are often manipulated to favor a desired outcome. But their articles are just a mirror of what's posted on the internet and they choose things impartially and have no bias?

You're defense is that there's just more right wing fake news out there. Please.

I don't even care that they are biased, you care that they are called that though and need to defend their honor and integrity.

"The proof that Snopes is biased against conservatives is that they DON'T disproportionately attack liberals!!! No, I'm not fucking crazy, why do you ask? Here, let me link you to this Forbes article that directly corroborates an issue that exists only in my mind."

 

[Cooz]

The snopes articles is bullshit. They investigated nothing. At best this is an attempt to smear a website and at worst, they are attempting to cover for something possibly very dangerous to children.

All the website did was report what these veterans had come across. Nothing more.

You know Hitler used the color purple to hide the truth.

Until you change that font, you're Hitler.

 

[JosephDredd]

It really is just web searches.

They no editorial oversight and do not follow standard journalistic procedures such as interviewing the authors of articles they are trying to debunk to get all sides of the story.

lol that is not standard journalistic procedure. You are so demented.