• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: The News Thread

There are 15 sources listed.
Six of those "sources" are links to other "Truth Wiki" articles.

One of them links a Reddit thread (in a "news" subreddit that has a banner defending apartheid).

The rest appear, for the most part, to be far-right wing conspiracy blogs---politicalcult.com, 100percentfedup.com, naturalnews.com, accuracyinpolitics.blogspot, yournewswire.com.

Funny stuff.
 
Last edited:
There are 15 sources listed.

As soon as they went on a rant about snopes being on the wrong side of the gmo "debate", I didn't need to comb their "sources". I'm very familiar with that particular discussion and what actual peer reviewed literature is available on the subject. If someone wants to disagree with the current state of the data, have at it. I won't suggest that it's 100% accurate...but to take shots at a fact checker for utilizing the best facts currently available tells me as much as I need to know about the veracity of that source.
 
Like Forbes.

Nope. Forbes is not once of the sources listed. There is however, a link to a "Truth Wiki" article on Forbes.

One actual primary source among those listed is Vanity Fair.

But it links to a 15 year-old article on George W Bush's ties to the Saudis that doesn't appear to make any mention at all of Snopes.
 
Nope. Forbes is not once of the sources listed. There is however, a link to a "Truth Wiki" article on Forbes.

One actual primary source among those listed is Vanity Fair.

But it links to a 15 year-old article on George W Bush's ties to the Saudis that doesn't appear to make any mention at all of Snopes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevl...fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#15a5bffa227f

You asked for examples, I provided examples.

Then there is the whole fact that they sent up a hail mary crowdfunding rescue cry... yeah all is well at snopes.
 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevl...fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#15a5bffa227f

You asked for examples, I provided examples.

Then there is the whole fact that they sent up a hail mary crowdfunding rescue cry... yeah all is well at snopes.

So yeah...read the article, it basically boils down to: I don't like how they run their fact checking website, and the owner is bound by the divorce agreement to not say a whole lot about it. But I'm going to cast doubt on it all, without actually using examples of shoddy workmanship to back up the claims that I'm not making, but am suggesting might kinda sorta maybe be a problem.

The funny thing is, the easiest way to determine if a fact checker is full of shit, is to check their facts. You don't need to play bullshit word games and use unnamed sources (that have no reason for being unnamed, this is ****ing Snopes, not the CIA that you're reporting on). Snopes leaves a relatively detailed description of why they're calling something true or false. Just fact check the fact checker, don't nibble around the edges hand wringing about them not running the site the way you think it should be run.

This guy seems to miss the ****ing plot entirely.
 
Or maybe Snopes are bought and paid for shills?

I'm open to the idea. You've presented nothing resembling evidence of that though. You've posted links with words and stuff on the other end of them, but none of those words have been even remotely convincing. In fact, the quality of the arguments used seem to suggest the opposite. If that's the worst that can be said of Snopes, they seem to have done a solid job for a number of years.
 
Back
Top