Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Daishiman 3614 days ago
But that's assuming that readers go there to get only the fact without the accompanying context that is the real kernel of the issue. People don't go and check whether the fact iself, uncontextualized, is true; they want to see if Hillary really was the asshat that you would infer to be based on the stated line.

Snopes does it correctly; they say that the fact is true but it is evidently not the cause of the outrage that the original statement tries to create in the readers.
2 comments
mod 3614 days ago
If you're correct, then Snopes starts dealing in non-facts. Suddenly they have to say "this meme infers Hillary is an asshat." That's not verifiable in any way. It's a feeling you have based on your (widely-shared!) views. I think fact-checkers should deal in facts.

Snopes does not rate the claim true, and that's really all I'm taking issue with. I'd like them to rate it for truthiness and then give some evidence and context. No need for them to guess at what the author was inferring.

link
hsod 3614 days ago
> People don't go and check whether the fact iself, uncontextualized, is true

This used to be exactly what I went to Snopes for. There's a million places online where people interpret facts and tell you whether or not they should be a cause of outrage.

Context in the article is good, but the top level "True/Mostly True ..." classification felt sacred to me. This one seems like a clear "Mostly True"

link