[hannasanarion]

How surprising, a site with a banner that says "it's okay to be white" and currently has a front-page article about how black people are too stupid to talk in court makes a bunch of nitpicks of snopes' prose.

Presumably so that they can later say "snopes is always wrong and biased" when Snopes contradicts Breitbart's claims that Obama and the UN and Black Lives Matter are planning to burn down Central Park next weekend.

(actual thing a relative told me, actual breitbart story from summer 2015,for those HN users fortunate enough not to be exposed to the worst of the fake news epidemic)

[sublupo]

Here is an example of a false Snopes article https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gop-obamacare-repeal-elect...

Snopes claims that a meme (showing a picture of people, many of whom have red x over their faces, writing that everyone with a red x has been voted out of office) is true even though they admit

> Although memes are frequently grossly inaccurate, this one got the general idea and numbers correct (even if the persons actually pictured in the accompanying photograph are difficult or impossible to identify).

Some of the people with an x were not elected people and some did not get voted out. This meme is clearly false, yet Snopes calls it true.

[hannasanarion]

Is the information on the snopes page false or incorrect? No, it isn't.

There's a reason that they write more about each topic than merely the headline.

"snopes occasionally makes editorial decisions I disagree with" is not the same as "snopes is fake and unreliable".

Sorry, I must have missed it the first time, tell me again why you continue to rely on an overtly racist blog to be your arbiter of "ethics"?

[sublupo]

> Is the information on the snopes page false or incorrect? No, it isn't.

It is both false and incorrect. Saying that "every one with an x has since been voted out of congress" When not every one with an x has since been voted out of congress is false. I mean even the article quotes a tweet listing 10 people who were incorrectly marked. You should see what Snopes does every time a right wing person says something not 100% correct.

> "snopes occasionally makes editorial decisions I disagree with" is not the same as "snopes is fake and unreliable".

Again, the Snopes article is blatantly false.

> Sorry, I must have missed it the first time, tell me again why you continue to rely on an overtly racist blog to be your arbiter of "ethics"?

Sorry, I missed why you think that I continue to rely on a racist blog to be my arbiter of ethics.