More proof that snopes cannot be trusted...

How can we get snopes to look into the validity of TS premise? We need some unbiased truth.
 
I can't stop laughing at the jet fuel can't melt steel beams being posted unironically twice.
 
Snopes is the preferred site for the fat purple haired truth seeker.
 
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.


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 lopsided it is.

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 Islamist antics.

"absolutionist stance on my post"
Absolutionist isn't a word, but yeah I understand what you're saying.
"Don't fact check what I actually said, it's just the general gist of my whinging that's important".
I listed the counter examples... whinge about it all you want, that doesn't change the facts.

The reason you think they "exonerate the leftist narrative" (or cover more right-wing claims than left-wing claims) is pretty simple, they check facts...
CT nonsense and fake news on social media isn't distributed equally between the left and the right.
That said, there are some notable left-wing bullshitters (raw story gets checked a lot by them) that feature prominently on the site.
As do CTs which aren't political at all.
Thanks to the internet, fake news spreads faster than real news unfortunately.
 
"absolutionist stance on my post"
Absolutionist isn't a word, but yeah I understand what you're saying.

No, the dictionary is running a hit piece on the TS' post. Don't you get it yet?!??!!
 
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.
<Dany07>
 
Yes I know that's not a word I typed it anyway.

I listed the counter examples... whinge about it all you want, that doesn't change the facts.
Those aren't counter examples. There are no questions on the website asking about German no-go zones or Mohammed baby names in UK. They aren't there. That was the point in comparison to the links I provided on what they did post about. You think you've proven that false, but haven't, post the links.

The reason you think they "exonerate the leftist narrative"is pretty simple, they check facts...
CT nonsense and fake news on social media isn't distributed equally between the left and the right.
I see now we're making progress, as you've established a narrative to explain why I was right about the lopsided pages on their website.

You explanation holds little water though, they have absolute control of what claims they decide to fact check on. It's not impartial balance lol. You'll find a lot of them are "did someone post some fake news viral etc on the internet that tries to make migrants etc look bad?" because the recent migrants don't do bad stuff right that would be rare? We can't fact check questions that make them look bad, let's just post ones that make them look good and exonerate them lol.

Type in "migrant" and you will see. Did you type in CNN? They're not deciding to fact check everything "as they come".

Some of their sources seem totally random unknown low traffic sources and joke posts made in jest or to rustle jims, some online tabloid articles which sound like satire, but they treat them like they were serious and fact check them. The underlying commonality being fact checking them suits the leftist narrative and makes their chosen targets look good.

And how are you privy to how they decide to source everything? Does it have to be claims made from Facebook CT nonsense. Maybe it is, and that makes the integrity of your beloved snopes look even worse.

As do CTs which aren't political at all.
They were doing that from day one, way before Trump 2016 happened. Hardly a point here.
 
Last edited:
So Snopes simply reposted the police report that their investigation found it was nothing more than a homeless camp, not a child trafficking site.
"The Free Thought Project" is just whinging that their clickbait headline got them flagged as fake news, when they thought their use of quotation marks let them off for shitty, sensationalist reporting.

BINGO

aBig and Judge really going after Byrons "shittiest poster on sherdog" title.
 
Yes I know that's not a word I typed it anyway.


Those aren't counter examples. There are no questions on the website asking about German no-go zones or Mohammed baby names in UK. They aren't there. That was the point in comparison to the links I provided on what they did post about. You think you've proven that false, but haven't, post the links.



I see now we're making progress, as you've established a narrative to explain why I was right about the lopsided pages on their website.

You explanation holds little water though, they have absolute control of what claims they decide to fact check on. It's not impartial balance lol. You'll find a lot of them are "did someone post some fake news viral etc on the internet that tries to make migrants etc look bad?" because the recent migrants don't do bad stuff right that would be rare? We can't fact check questions that make them look bad, let's just post ones that make them look good and exonerate them lol.

Type in "migrant" and you will see. Did you type in CNN? They're not deciding to fact check everything "as they come".

Some of their sources seem totally random unknown low traffic sources and joke posts made in jest or to rustle jims, some online tabloid articles which sound like satire, but they treat them like they were serious and fact check them. The underlying commonality being fact checking them suits the leftist narrative and makes their chosen targets look good.


They were doing that from day one, way before Trump 2016 happened. Hardly a point here.

I don't think "absolution" was the term you meant to refer to, but never mind, I release you from your guilt anyway.

Of course they haven't fact checked the one story you picked. That proves absolutely nothing.
You never made the claim that they covered more right-wing bullshit than left-wing bullshit, I addressed the actual claims you made.
I don't think it's controversial at all to state that they cover more right-wing than left-wing fake news. Like I said, there's way more of it being spread.
In particular, in the study I referred to Trump supporters shared more junk news on twitter than all the other groups combined.

On Twitter, the Trump Support Group shares 95% of the junk news sites on the watch list, and accounted for 55% of junk news traffic in the sample. Other kinds of audiences shared content from these junk news sources, but at much lower levels. On Facebook, the Hard Conservative Group shares 91% of the junk news sites on the watch list, and accounted for 58% of junk news traffic in the sample. The coverage and consistency scores for Facebook and Twitter reveal some important features of these platforms when it comes to junk news circulation. The average coverage score for the major audiences of junk news on Twitter and Facebook is 54 and 33, respectively. This means that on average, groups of Twitter share 54% of the junk news watch list and groups of Facebook users share 33%.


It's also true that Snopes are mostly focused on falsehoods being spread on social media rather than fact checking politicians statements (there's some overlap obviously). They are also only focused on English language stories and from an American perspective.

If that's your idea of them being "untrustworthy", that's pretty laughable.

"The underlying commonality being fact checking them suits the leftist narrative and makes their chosen targets look good."

Nonsense.
...and how is it that fact checking Raw Story all the time, or fake news about Trump, "suits the leftist narrative"?
 
No bias huh?

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016...-weight-leaves-fat-wife-and-marries-actual-wh
We already know that Snopes staff are militantly liberal fact checkers who love insulting conservatives. Proven liberal bias aside, can we trust an organization co-founded by an embezzling, whore mongering, possibly cat abandoning shill?

Why were you mentioning CT facebook shitposts as their source? Not saying you're wrong, since it would explain a lot lol.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cludes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html
David Mikkelson told the Dailymail.com that Snopes does not have a “standardized procedure” for fact-checking “since the nature of this material can vary widely”.
snopes-wife-claims-husband-embezzled-thousands-and-spent-it-on-prostitutes-but-hey-theyll-tell-us-what-fake-news-is.jpg


Of course they haven't fact checked the one story you picked. That proves absolutely nothing.
Then you missed the point I was making they won't do them because that's not the leftist narrative they want to push. They did do specific questions that suited them though, no updates either.

To expand on the examples in my original post.

An example (hypothetical) of the claims they "answer":

Reality (hypothetical) They're owned by a newspaper that publicly endorsed Hillary.

Claim on their website: "Snopes is controlled by the Clinton campaign".

Rating: FALSE

This is basically what they do. They make changes to a claim so that they can give a true or false verdict on it depending on what helps their political narrative. Secondly they are excessively lopsided on what they choose to report on, like anything bad on migrants/left etc indicating a huge numerical imbalance between the two.

Nonsense. ...and how is it that fact checking Raw Story all the time "suits the leftist narrative"?
You thought you had a point, when most of the fact checks on the whole page and second one aren't too flattering to the right. We'll go through them shall we? Also did you type in CNN or Migrant and go through them?
 
Last edited:
No bias huh?

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016...-weight-leaves-fat-wife-and-marries-actual-wh

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

snopes-wife-claims-husband-embezzled-thousands-and-spent-it-on-prostitutes-but-hey-theyll-tell-us-what-fake-news-is.jpg



Then you missed the point I was making they won't do them because that's not the leftist narrative they want to push. They did do specific questions that suited them though, no updates either.


You thought you had a point, when most of the fact checks on the whole page and second one aren't too flattering to the right. We'll go through them shall we? Also did you type in CNN or Migrant and go through them?

It's hilarious that you'd quote articles from Zerohedge and the Daily Mail to try and demonstrate bias on Snopes.
Just goes to show the extent of your ability to assess information I guess.
I'm sure infowars shares the same opinion...
Figures that you'd post a meme.

You can find the writers interviews where they discuss their expertise and how they choose their stories.

The urban legends/folklore and political writers are mostly separate, but they respond to social media trends and direct inquiries.

Why don't you go ahead and explain how debunking fake news about Trump, debunking left-wing memes, debunking false stories about Bill O'Reilly or debunking fake news about a mass Muslim protest against Isis is "serving the leftist narrative".

"Then you missed the point I was making they won't do them because that's not the leftist narrative they want to push. They did do specific questions that suited them though, no updates either."

Oh, hey... they also haven't debunked the right-wing claim that fluoride in the water is a communist plot! Clear proof of right-wing bias!

Not all the search items under "Raw Story" were actually raw story articles. If you look at the ones that were, well maybe you could try hard enough and imagine a left-wing narrative they were pushing. What they tend to have in common, is that they are reports on unconfirmed or false internet rumours being spread on social media.
 
It's hilarious that you'd quote articles from Zerohedge and the Daily Mail to try and demonstrate bias on Snopes.
It's hilarious you think they are a bastion of truth and impartiality. Who is close to the truth me or you?

I guess you must read The New York Times and The Washington Post which comes up with dozens of their articles citing Snopes.com as the unparalleled authority on “truth”.

You can find the writers interviews where they discuss their expertise and how they choose their stories. The urban legends/folklore and political writers are separate, but they mostly respond to social media trends.
I'm sure their methods end up impartial as the results show (sarcasm), also it's just not a good look if you admit scraping the bottom of the barrel that would usually be met with derision and ridicule. From the links I've gone through most claims are not social media sources directly but indirect coverage of them that have been reported on through lighthearted, or plain troll sites and tabloid articles, they type that say "bat-child found on moon" or something and snopes fact checks it. There's one with "‘Animal Brothels’ Open in Germany as Migrant Population Hits 22 Percent?" Of course they had to fact check that quicktime. Nothing on Rotherham.

Why don't you go ahead and explain how debunking fake news about Trump, debunking left-wing memes or debunking fake news about a mass Muslim protest against Isis is "serving the leftist narrative".
I replied to you if you want to go through the links you provided, this would establish there's a glaring numerical imbalance. As well as going through CNN and Migrants and you just post one article about left wing memes.

Also you post a link with Search results for: "raw story" from within Snopes own search with a list of links coming up, then berate me "for not looking close enough they're not Raw Story", wtf damn bro get some integrity.

What they tend to have in common, is that they are reports on unconfirmed or false internet rumours being spread on social media.
Yes that's what they do, thanks for letting me know. Going back to the topic, you're saying there's no bias in what the decide to fact check right? Everything's imparital? It's very simple, it's like a news org simply not reporting on news they don't like, have angle they want to push, I bet that's a CT to you too and doesn't happen either. Snopes isn't even a news org so probably don't have any oversight from a higher power (they don't if you look at the Daily Mail article and the one you posted).
 
Speaking of Raw Story (whoever they are) and snopes:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/16/s...-checker-employs-leftists-almost-exclusively/

At least two of the site’s fact-checkers joined Snopes after writing for Raw Story, a far-left publication that describes itself as a “progressive news site that focuses on stories often ignored in the mainstream media.” Several others have demonstrated liberal partisanship.

Snopes, which will now have the power to declare what news is or is not legitimate, almost exclusively employs leftists. Facebook announced Thursday that mythbusting website Snopes will be one of a few fact-checking organizations allowed to label stories as “fake news.”

Almost all of the writers churning out fact checks for Snopes have a liberal background, and many of them have expressed contempt for Republican voters. The Daily Caller could not identify a single Snopes fact-checker who comes from a conservative background. Snopes did not respond to a list of questions from TheDC regarding the site’s ideological leaning.
 
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/

Site is ridiculous, and the fact that Facebook uses it as a trustworthy news source is even more ridiculous.

CLAIM: A bear shits in the woods.

RATING: False

ORIGIN: Bears may live and eat and defecate in forest areas, but some bears live in zoos and only shit there.

And that's not shitting in the woods now is it?
 
Allow me to visually narrate the following exchange with navigation-clogging GIFs and jpegs:
What do you feel that Snopes should have done differently? They checked with law enforcement, who said that they found no sign of any form of human trafficking.
M_HY8c.gif

Since when do you value anything said by law enforcement?
DUCKMALLARDWILD-3.jpg
 
It's hilarious you think they are a bastion of truth and impartiality. Who is close to the truth me or you?

Since you posted Zerohedge and the Daily Mail, it's clear you don't care about the truth.

I guess you must read The New York Times and The Washington Post which comes up with dozens of their articles citing Snopes.com as the unparalleled authority on “truth”.

I'm sure their methods end up impartial as the results show (sarcasm), also it's just not a good look if you admit scraping the bottom of the barrel that would usually be met with derision and ridicule. From the links I've gone through most claims are not social media sources directly but indirect coverage of them that have been reported on through lighthearted, or plain troll sites and tabloid articles, they type that say "bat-child found on moon" or something and snopes fact checks it. There's one with "‘Animal Brothels’ Open in Germany as Migrant Population Hits 22 Percent?" Of course they had to fact check that quicktime. Nothing on Rotherham.

You seem confused about what Snopes is. They look at "rumours and misinformation". That means they are responding to the sort of bottom scraping muck that's typically found on... sites like Zerohedge or the Daily Mail. As well as all the other chain email/posts and other crap that abounds on the web.
They aren't a general political fact checker.

I replied to you if you want to go through the links you provided, this would establish there's a glaring numerical imbalance. As well as going through CNN and Migrants and you just post one article about left wing memes.

One article? I've posted about a dozen now. You've posted memes, zerohedge and the daily mail. I know there's an imbalance, that's the nature of tabloid trash, fake news, CT's and chain posts/emails. They are overwhelmingly a right-wing phenomenon.
I posted a study which demonstrated as much, which you continue to ignore.
There's not a lot of left-wing fake news about migrants being circulated on the web.
They do touch on some though.

Also you post a link with Search results for: "raw story" from within Snopes own search with a list of links coming up, then berate me "for not looking close enough they're not Raw Story", wtf damn bro get some integrity.

If you read them they say which ones were posted by Raw Story. The search was just to demonstrate that they often report on Raw Story because they are a really trashy left-wing source that gets spammed a lot on social media. If you want an example of how that fails to demonstrate a "Left-wing narrative" but shows their general practice of tackling fake news on social media, here's one of their articles on a Raw Story article about Bill O'Reilly. You can see they are responding to an Occupy Democrats tweet which sourced a Raw Story article.

Yes that's what they do, thanks for letting me know. Going back to the topic, you're saying there's no bias in what the decide to fact check right? Everything's imparital? It's very simple, it's like a news org simply not reporting on news they don't like, have angle they want to push, I bet that's a CT to you too and doesn't happen either. Snopes isn't even a news org so probably don't have any oversight from a higher power (they don't if you look at the Daily Mail article and the one you posted).

You seem to be missing the point. What you are calling "bias" is just the nature of what they are covering. They are specifically responding to inquiries and trends on social media. That's what they are talking about as "rumours and misinformation". In terms of fake news and political content being shared on social media, what you see is overwhelmingly dominated by the right-wing/conservatives. Much the same way the right-wing has always dominated tabloid news in the anglosphere. There are of course exceptions, such as the increasing number of fake Trump stories or activist claims about corporate crimes.
 
I certainly don't think Snopes is 100% accurate. That said, sometimes If I'm already doubtful of something I'll snoop around on snopes to see what they concluded just so I don't waste any unneccesary time.
 
Back
Top