More proof that snopes cannot be trusted...

[JosephDredd]

Since when do you value anything said by law enforcement?

Any reasons you think there are for me to dismiss anything said by law enforcement are entirely because you drew the kind of connections that an idiot would draw in order to believe people who have criticized police are thoroughly unreasonable people. Maybe you should smarten the fuck up.

Branding something fake news because the almighty Snopes deemed it that is an issue. People should have the ability themselves to look into things instead of being spoon fed the answer by a biased site. How far did Snopes investigate police decision did they request the actual report or just look at a press release? Did they interview the witnesses or visit the site themselves?

You think the police put out a press release that was different than the conclusion to their investigation? Half of your criticisms are you ranting about society. You sound fucking insane. Maybe you should smarten the fuck up.

 

[Judge]

Cliffs:
A group of veterans who patrol the dessert in Arizona hoping to help homeless veterans, came across a what they reported was "a child trafficking camp in the middle of Tucson."


CLAIM

A veteran group patrolling in Tucson, Arizona, found a child trafficking site.


RATING

False

ORIGIN

In late May and early June, conspiratorial web sites such as TheFreeThoughtProject.com reported that a veteran group had stumbled upon a “disturbing bunker” in Tucson, Arizona, that was being used for child sex trafficking:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-veterans-discover-trafficking-bunker-tucson/



Update: The supposed arbiters of truth at Snopes have attempted to claim that this story is false. For that reason, and without any other input, thousands of people who shared this article received notices from Facebook—who trusts an agency with a history of corruption to be their fact-checking source—that they shared fake news.


Snopes’ article attempting to debunk this story is nothing more than disinformation. They cannot prove this ‘claim’ to be ‘false’ as there was no claim ever made by us. The Free Thought Project merely reported on the activities of VOP and noted the possibility that this camp could also simply be a homeless camp. It’s why we used quotes in the title around “Child Trafficking Camp” because these were their words, not ours.


If Snopes is allowed to lie and punish those for reporting on this information—without recourse—the days of free information exchange are over. We have sent Snopes a cease and desist and will continue to report any information that we think our readers value....

Update 2: According to police, they brought through cadaver dogs. Well, according to a recent post by VOP, they missed one. Thursday afternoon, VOP posted a video of what they are calling a child’s remains on their Facebook page.


The team finds the child’s remains around the 10 minute mark in the video below.
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/v...isturbing-child-trafficking-bunker-in-tucson/

All of the fact checkers cannot be trusted. Politifact is just as wretched.

All we need is free speech and the truth will come out. Put out a stupid idea and it will get ridiculed and exposed.
We don't need fact checking sites.

 

[JosephDredd]

All of the fact checkers cannot be trusted. Politifact is just as wretched.

All we need is free speech and the truth will come out. Put out a stupid idea and it will get ridiculed and exposed.
We don't need fact checking sites.

lol the state of the right is unreal. Anything to advance their ability to both spread bullshit and worship bullshit.

 

[abiG]

All of the fact checkers cannot be trusted. Politifact is just as wretched.

All we need is free speech and the truth will come out.

Indeed. I cannot belive, four pages in and it seems no one even sees the issue.

I am glad the cops investigated and hope everything is as described.

But the snopes piece was a hit piece on a website that claimed nothing.

They simply reported what the veterans group discovered. I'm shocked that no one sees that.

Edit: THIS IS NOT A LEFT/RIGHT ISSUE.

 

[Ruprecht]

All of the fact checkers cannot be trusted. Politifact is just as wretched.

All we need is free speech and the truth will come out. Put out a stupid idea and it will get ridiculed and exposed.
We don't need fact checking sites.

That seems unlikely. The majority of social media users don't even read the articles they share (based on the ratio of shares to "clicks"), let alone fact check.
Hence why facebook informing users that they spread articles with deceptive titles is a good thing (the mechanisms they employ need a lot of development though).

 

[Gandhi]

Fact checkers is what allows free speech to work helllooooooo

 

[JosephDredd]

Indeed. I cannot belive, four pages in and it seems no one even sees the issue.

I am glad the cops investigated and hope everything is as described.

But the snopes piece was a hit piece on a website that claimed nothing.

They simply reported what the veterans group discovered. I'm shocked that no one sees that.

Edit: THIS IS NOT A LEFT/RIGHT ISSUE.

Lol give it a rest, you maniac. There's a reason only you and Judge can see the "issue"

 

[uppercutbus]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cludes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html

claiming in legal documents he embezzled $98,000 of company money and spent it on 'himself and prostitutes'

They've also proven to be leftist agenda driven by omission. By avoiding FALSE stories peddled by the media/our government and focusing only on disproving/proving items that do support the narrative.

Remember the FBI wiretapping Obama, they are also avoiding the Russian hacking/Trump connection stories CNN and friends have been promoting for some time like the plague. It's been months of anti-Trump Russian stories. Why are they scared of debunking any claims made by the MSM?

Can't have a losing track record if you don't allow the question to be asked in the first place on their website. Things like this would be listed as "probably" (their standards) at minimum.

1) Won't debunk controversial stories about The Right.

2) Won't verify stories critical of the The Left.

You will never see things like the above validated as Possible or Probably. At absolute best the question will be adjusted in such a way like "did Michelle Obama wiretap Trump"? "No! conspiracy theory!"

For example in order to fit the leftist narrative the question can be adjusted to suit a narrative or never presented on their website in the first place:

============

Example: Does Germany have no-go Zones as Merkel declared?

Won't ever have that question on their website. Won't update previous questions to apply to Germany - because according to them the case is closed, there are no "no-go" zones.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sharia-law-muslim-no-go-zones/

The question is presented as having the qualifiers of "operating under Sharia Law" (a high bar, not general migrant violent douchbaggery that can also cause this) and deliberately lists the countries "no-go" zones are allowed to apply to. Won't mention Germany. Laughable, won't allow new questions regarding no-go zones to be presented and checked, but keep old ones up referring to "no-go zones" as conspiracy theories.

============

Another example:
Is Mohammed the Most Popular Name for Newborn Boys in the Netherlands?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-mohammed-popular-name-netherlands/

Ok so what about UK? Won't ask that question lol. Nowhere on Snopes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3770523/Oliver-Amelia-popular-baby-names.html

Snopes is an absolute propaganda site, anything they declare false is probably the opposite.

When you are the arbiter of "fact checking", simply ignoring what you don't like, adjusting the questions in such a way to prove fale/true and so on - the "truth" is relative.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You can't


Correct, they investigated NOTHING, in that there was NOTHING to find that was convincing that this claim is true. Hence the claim is false.

Ummm, I think in reality land, there is a 3rd option, which is niether confirmed nor debunked.

Which I guess makes Snopes false.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Fact checkers is what allows free speech to work helllooooooo

Yeah, we used to call fact checkers the news, until we figured out they were lying to us, and they were forced to rebrand as "fact checkers"

 

[PhitePhan]

Let me guess... anti-vax related?

If I didn't know better, I would think you were trying to derail this thread... I'm surprised as a mod you would be leading this charge?

If your are really interested in the article I'm talking about, feel free to PM me.

 

[Ruprecht]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cludes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html



They've also proven to be leftist agenda driven by omission. By avoiding FALSE stories peddled by the media/our government and focusing only on disproving/proving items that do support the narrative.

Remember the FBI wiretapping Obama, they are also avoiding the Russian hacking/Trump connection stories CNN and friends have been promoting for some time like the plague. It's been months of anti-Trump Russian stories. Why are they scared of debunking any claims made by the MSM?

Can't have a losing track record if you don't allow the question to be asked in the first place on their website. Things like this would be listed as "probably" (their standards) at minimum.

1) Won't debunk controversial stories about The Right.

2) Won't verify stories critical of the The Left.

You will never see things like the above validated as Possible or Probably. At absolute best the question will be adjusted in such a way like "did Michelle Obama wiretap Trump"? "No! conspiracy theory!"

For example in order to fit the leftist narrative the question can be adjusted to suit a narrative or never presented on their website in the first place:

============

Example: Does Germany have no-go Zones as Merkel declared?

Won't ever have that question on their website. Won't update previous questions to apply to Germany - because according to them the case is closed, there are no "no-go" zones.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sharia-law-muslim-no-go-zones/

The question is presented as having the qualifiers of "operating under Sharia Law" (a high bar, not general migrant violent douchbaggery that can also cause this) and deliberately lists the countries "no-go" zones are allowed to apply to. Won't mention Germany. Laughable, won't allow new questions regarding no-go zones to be presented and checked, but keep old ones up referring to "no-go zones" as conspiracy theories.

============

Another example:
Is Mohammed the Most Popular Name for Newborn Boys in the Netherlands?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-mohammed-popular-name-netherlands/

Ok so what about UK? Won't ask that question lol. Nowhere on Snopes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3770523/Oliver-Amelia-popular-baby-names.html


When you are the arbiter of "fact checking", simply ignoring what you don't like, adjusting the questions in such a way to prove fale/true and so on - the "truth" is relative.

False.
Try looking at how many claims about Trump they've debunked.

 

[uppercutbus]

False.
Try looking at how many claims about Trump they've debunked.

Those are some small fry tweet checks and easily checked, did you read my post. Where are the big hitter actual news and muslim fact checks?

- Someones shitpost fat-image digitally altered of Trump fact checked - oh noes.
- 1998 'People' magazine interview fact check - lol.
- Fact checking someones fake tweet is like like fact checking memes.

Is that all you got? Those are some tame things to fact check and will hardly be one anyone's radar or political spectrum, let alone change anyone's mind on Trump.

 

[Ruprecht]

Those are some small fry tweet checks and easily checked, did you read my post. Where are the big hitter actual news and muslim fact checks?

- Someones shitpost fat-image digitally altered of Trump fact checked - oh noes.
- 1998 'People' magazine interview fact check - lol.
- Fact checking someones fake tweet is like like fact checking memes.

Is that all you got? Those are some tame things to fact check and will hardly be one anyone's radar or political spectrum, let alone change anyone's mind on Trump.

They mostly focus on social media and conspiracy theories, but they have fact checked claims about major media outlets which are negative (and confirmed them).
So basically everything you claimed was false.

 

[abiG]

Knowing abiG... it was probably the Rothschilds that paid them.

LOL, I had no idea it was their land.

They mostly focus on social media and conspiracy theories, but they have fact checked claims about major media outlets which are negative (and confirmed them).
So basically everything you claimed was false.

Snopes lies about many things and have been caught numerous times. Use google or if you are too lazy, go to the snopes site yourself and see their explanation of how jet fuel and office crap can burn hot enough to liquefy steel.

 

[uppercutbus]

They mostly focus on social media and conspiracy theories, but they have fact checked claims about major media outlets which are negative (and confirmed them).
So basically everything you claimed was false.

How it all false? Where have you addressed the muslim and no-go questions? Part of my post was their omission of questions. You say this is false, so show me. You can't. Neither the daily mail link.

You are going absolute, and only looking at one aspect, finding one or two examples then claiming the whole post false. Also look at the claim in the first one:

Donna Brazile was fired from CNN after leaked e-mails suggested she used her position to pass information to the Clinton campaign about upcoming appearances.

How is that claim controversial? It's just parroting what happened. Did this happen? Yes it did. *shrugs*

 

[Ruprecht]

How it all false? Where have you addressed the muslim and no-go questions? Part of my post was their omission of questions. You say this is false, so show me. You can't. Neither the daily mail link.

You are going absolute, and only looking at one aspect, finding one or two examples then claiming the whole post false. Also look at the claim in the first one:

How is that claim controversial? It's just parroting what happened. Did this happen? Yes it did. *shrugs*

Literally everything you posted about their failure to fact check the left or the mainstream media was false. It only takes one example to falsify those claims and I provided a bunch of them.

"1) Won't debunk controversial stories about The Right."

False. - I provided a bunch of times they've debunked claims about Trump.

"2) Won't verify stories critical of the The Left."

False. - I provided the time they verified the Donna Brazile story.

"They've also proven to be leftist agenda driven by omission. By avoiding FALSE stories peddled by the media/our government and focusing only on disproving/proving items that do support the narrative."

False - I provided the time when they fact checked CNN editing one of Trump's tweets.

"You will never see things like the above validated as Possible or Probably. At absolute best the question will be adjusted in such a way like "did Michelle Obama wiretap Trump"? "No! conspiracy theory!"" - Mixture.

You're right, they don't use the terms Possible or Probably, they are verifying the facts so they use Undetermined , Mixture or Unproven.

As for your fixation on their coverage of Muslims...

The reason you see so much of them debunking negative stories about Muslims is simple, there's an enormous amount of nonsense and fake news spread about Muslims on Social Media. An entire industry devoted to it in fact. Your claim that they'll just reframe the question so they can say it's false is actually a false claim though. With a lack of evidence either way they usually say, Unproven.

They do confirm such stories occasionally though. They also fact check positive stories about Muslims, including ones which are mostly false.

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

Knowing abiG... it was probably the Rothschilds that paid them.

Well, as with all abiG threads

 

[jefferz]

Well, as with all abiG threads

 

[uppercutbus]

Again, your absolutionist stance on my post. Also you said everything I said was false, where's is the Daily Mail news article rebuttal?

If you are scouring the website then you miss the point, because you are taking an absolute stance and think your link that fact checked on CNN disproves a bias on their part.

"They've also proven to be leftist agenda driven by omission. By avoiding FALSE stories peddled by the media/our government and focusing only on disproving/proving items that do support the narrative."
False - I provided the time when they fact checked CNN editing one of Trump's tweets.

Some things are unavoidable and to give the impression of "impartiality" one or two articles would help with that. The clear lopsided fact checking proves me right in the end more than you. The claim I am making is that Snopes is heavily biased, and avoids questions, how many of their fact checks make CNN look bad? Your numbers aren't convincing. The have claims on their website that they fact check on and it's very lopsided, incredibly, that exonerate the leftist narrative considerably more than make them look bad. It's clearly in my favor. You can do this when you control what questions can be asked in the first place.

How do you prove a negative? The examples I gave are there for you to prove false. As it is your are throwing the kitchen sink of other things and think it proves they did fact check on them? Where? Where is the UK question, where is the German no-go zone question. What you're doing is posting something else and think it's the same thing and hoping something sticks, but the fact is, they are not fact checking things I described and more importantly just how numerically lopsided the claims are in favor of exonerating leftist narratives.

I can post the entire first page of links about CNN and nearly all will be exonerating them, make Trump look bad etc. that's the game you want to play it seems. Check it yourself, same with immigration/muslim antics.