[coldtea]

So like any e.g. conspiracy theorist site out there?

They too try to "debunk incorrect narratives" (as they see it).

Why trust some random non-expert volunteers running a site and their citations (which could be biased).

[Fjolsvith]

At least they make an effort to support their arguments with some research. Calling them non-expert volunteers is prejudging them before even considering their position and determining whether it is valid or not by providing supporting or opposing citations.

[onlydeadheroes]

Or maybe we are not prejudging enough.

"If an organization like Snopes feels it is ok to hire partisan employees who have run for public office on behalf of a particular political party and employ them as fact checkers where they have a high likelihood of being asked to weigh in on material aligned with or contrary to their views, how can they reasonably be expected to act as neutral arbitrators of the truth?"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai...

[Fjolsvith]

Or maybe we are just focusing on who is weighing in on matters instead of measuring it ourselves.

[onlydeadheroes]

We went from

"Except the site specifically tries to debunk incorrect narratives"

to

"employees who have run for public office on behalf of a particular political party and employ them as fact checkers"

I think we achieved something important here, in spite of it all.