Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HToTD t1_iw763fd wrote

I would like to do a study on how well snopes, poltifact etc select extreme representations to paste false on, while minimizing foundational arguments on the same topic.

One of the more contentious examples is George Floyd's criminal history. Snopes etc will prominently label random memes as FALSE, but push foundational facts like Floyd's attack on a single mother of a one year old, into the minutia few will read.

7

WoNc t1_iw78b6m wrote

I'm not sure exactly which Snopes article you're using as an example here, but this seems to be the closest match and it is far more detailed and nuanced than you are suggesting.

I'm not going to suggest that Snopes is perfect, but the imperfections I've noticed are rather minor. The people who really have an ax to grind with them seem to invariably turn out to be the sort who don't appreciate fact checking getting in the way of narrative they're trying to push.

I also could not find anything that suggests the woman in the robbery case was pregnant. The police report that supposedly "proves" it makes no mention of pregnancy, only that she had a gun pointed at her abdomen.

So idk, but it looks a lot like you're here to cast doubt on Snopes because it's getting in the way of your narrative.

41

HToTD t1_iw7b752 wrote

Exactly the article I saw, the top result on Google. The primary topics are Candace Owens, then a meme, then Floyd's arrests for minor offenses, then if you have read down 20 paragraphs they tell you he perpatrated an armed invasion of a single mother's home.

−1

WoNc t1_iw7dlrj wrote

If you want them to evaluate the claims prior to establishing the claims and providing critical background information for later readers who may not know what event is being referred to, then you're simply being unreasonable. That is not an effective way to organize and present information.

Additionally, they first mention the unsubstantiated claim that he robbed a pregnant women in paragraph 7, as part of introducing the claims they intended to evaluate.

I do find it very interesting how hung up you are on this pregnant woman bit. You continue to repeat it, despite the fact that it's totally unsubstantiated, and in fact even use it as your motivation for distrusting Snopes. Strange.

30

HToTD t1_iw7inss wrote

Pull the crime report from whichever source you like. There was a 1 year old child, Amanda Negrete, at the residence Floyd invaded. Whether the mother was again pregnant is not listed, maybe my mistake. I will edit my first post to reflect single mother of one year old, rather than pregnant mother.

−12

caulrye t1_iw77p9v wrote

Not saying Trump isn’t disingenuous, he certainly is, but some of the fact checks on him were completely absurd.

He was legitimately fact checked on there being so many hamburgers for a visiting football “you could stack them to the moon”. Fact check: the number of burgers there could not be stacked to the moon.

Or during the months between Election Day and January 6th there was a fact check about whether or not Rudy Giuliani farted during a hearing.

The farting one bugs me more because this was in the middle of serious election denial on a national scale. There were big claims that needed to be checked. But, I guess let’s waste time laughing about a fart because facts are important or something. Idk, just rubbed me the wrong way.

12

jupitaur9 t1_iw7agsg wrote

The fart story was spread around a lot. People were interested in it.

Just like the question of whether Walt Disney’s head is frozen waiting for the technology to reanimate it, it’s not important at all. But it’s interesting to enough people to merit an entry on the site.

18

NadeWilson t1_iw7gxqx wrote

>Just like the question of whether Walt Disney’s head is frozen waiting for the technology to reanimate it, it’s not important at all. But it’s interesting to enough people to merit an entry on the site.

It's on the site because when it started back in the 90's it was literally just for exploring and/or debunking urban legands like that. Like many sites it's evolved and changed since then, but that entry predates most stuff on the site, tbh.

16

sailor_sega_saturn t1_iw8smpq wrote

90's snopes was awesome. Before the divorce, redesign, ads / sponsored content, and plagiarism. Just good old fashioned web design with a lot of interesting urban legends.

1

caulrye t1_iw810mm wrote

Ideally, and call me crazy, but fact checking should be motivated by facts and not childish farting.

−1

holyoak t1_iwa6uwc wrote

I can wish people were not obsessed with the Kardashians.

You can wish Snopes didn't write about farts.

Ultimately, the world is a better place when we don't get to decide what other people enjoy or do with their time.

2

caulrye t1_iwa8bgl wrote

Snopes is an institution with a specific goal. People being interested in Kardashians isn’t comparable.

0

holyoak t1_iwa9kei wrote

>Snopes is an institution with a specific goal

And that goal is... posting stuff people are interested in.

2

Dave10293847 t1_iw7a4oe wrote

The frustrating thing about that is it takes away from real stories and gives credence to the whole fake news narrative that he spun successfully to help win in 2016. This is a troubling trend overall. We can rationally dissect fact from fiction without clickbait and pedantic behavior.

−4

cyalknight t1_iw7ctfx wrote

I've noticed they could nitpick certain Facts to disprove, this might make some people assume the whole story is true or false. Or might give a true rating to a specific detail of one event that they are for and give a false rating to a specific detail of an event that they are against.

Unproven: During the Japanese Raid on Pearl Harbor, a radar operator had to walk half a mile down the road to a gas station to call in the report of the radar detection of the invading force.

False: Josh Hartnett or Ben Affleck were not present during the attack at Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941.

Truth: A radio operator did spot the invading force before the attack happened, but it is unknown according to Wikipedia if that was the radio operator that did not have a phone on site. The attack on Pearl Harbor was on December 7th, 1941, the main male actors in the Pearl Harbor movie by Michael Bay were not born until the 1970's.

Edit: Addition: Also, any link to a fact checking website is going to assumed the the link disproves the person making a fact. Or if linked by the person the assumption is it supports their story.

−5