[res0nat0r]

It isn't on the NYT to disprove the owners aren't child molesters, it's the crazies posting conspiracy theories which are still just that. This type of thinking above I think is a major problem these days.

Just because someone says something crazy on the internet doesn't mean that the person being accused is automatically guilty until they take the time out of their life to disprove said thing, it's the exact opposite.

[464192002d7fe1c]

Its not so much that I think its true (I don't) its just that I wouldn't, exactly, at this point be surprised if it was.

In any event, most of the stuff I read is less "omg guys this is totally 100% correct" and more "this is a seriously strange and disturbing set of coincidences" mixed with a lot of memeing circlejerk.

And after things like

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/corey-feldman-elijah-w...

and things like Jeffrey Epstein and the whole Jimmy Savile thing, I'm just not sure anymore of ANYTHING. Honestly, the fact that the NY times feels the need to publish an article debunking it is a (very very tiny) shove towards it being true.

[res0nat0r]

It really is just natural followup from the election and Trump winning.

I've seen it firsthand constantly the last few months on my FB feed. When ~50% of the electorate gets their news from Facebook only and it is 99% nonsense conspiracy theories not rooted in reality, the NYT and others have had a reality check that they should start calling out this nonsensical crap since so many people are gullible and actually are swayed by it.

[EdiX]

> It isn't on the NYT to disprove the owners aren't child molesters

If they don't want to do that they shouldn't title their article "Fact Check". If I see "Fact Check" I expect a piece that will engage the conspiracy theory in detail and debunk it piece by piece. Something like Snopes does, for example.

Saying "this is fake news, just trust me" is not a fact check, it's an opinion piece.

[argonaut]

No, many fact check websites (such as Snopes) will debunk conspiracy theories by simply saying "there is no evidence to support the theory, it's just wild speculation."

This is a perfectly valid fact check.

[EdiX]

I disagree that it constitutes a valid fact check, but it doesn't matter, nytimes removed the fact check label.

[argonaut]

It does constitute a valid fact check. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise.

Claim: EdiX is a crazy pedophile

Fact-check: This is just random speculation and there is no evidence.

By your standards an actual fact-check would need to cite testimony from your (ex-)partner(s)/spouse(s), a psychological evaluation, maybe some videos of you not being a pedophile around children. Utterly ridiculous.

[jjellyy]

Exactly but its their choice to write this article and they present no evidence the accusations have been debunked.

At best Its a weak attempt to defend the place, at worst its an example of a real news story that is being called fake to suppress opposition. Which is IMO what this whole fake news thing is really about.

The left's playbook is so one dimensional - always smear the messenger, never debate the message.

[res0nat0r]

The message is: Please stop believing in nonsense conspiracy theories which have no basis in reality.

If there was a story here backed up by facts it would be covered by the NYT.

[jjellyy]

You're right, the NYTimes controls reality.

[res0nat0r]

The NYTimes reports facts, which are reality.

Conspiracy websites, 4chan, Reddit and Twitter detectives are not in fact based in reality when it comes to this story.