[pwinnski]

> The only people who could possibly be confused that this is real news are toddlers

Have you been away from the internet for the last couple of years? There is literally nothing on the internet so fantastical that it won't be posted to social media stripped of context and believed by somebody.

[beerandt]

So we're going deplatform all satire?

[pwinnski]

Snopes doesn't de-platform anyone. Your beef is rightly with Google or Facebook.

Snopes labels things that are false as false. This includes many or most satirical articles. Given the number of times I've told someone that a thing is false and had to provide a scopes link before they would even start to believe me, I'm very grateful for snopes.

Facebook and Google can pound sand.

[beerandt]

I have plenty of issues with them too. But that doesn't exonerate Snopes for twisting claims in misleading ways, whether satire or not.

I used to rely on them, too. That's part of the reason that it pisses me off so much... It used to be a great resource.

Now I use it more to see how a political claim is going to spun, than to check whether it's true.

[dkonofalski]

That's not what they're suggesting and you know it.

[beerandt]

I do. But it's an impossible line to draw. How many people need to claim they believe satire is the truth for an article to be flagged?

[dkonofalski]

No, it's not. Every single one of those articles stems from a post on their forum where it's been requested. They regularly pick them based on their popularity in the forum. As long as they're consistent with that, it's completely possible to address these specific instances.

[beerandt]

>popularity in the forum

This is not, in anyway, a reasonable filter for bias, let alone one for satire.

[dkonofalski]

It's not a filter for bias and no one has claimed that it is. It's a filter for whether or not to address the content of a claim. Popularity is absolutely a reasonable filter for that and that seems to be what Snopes is using, regardless of politics, satire, or otherwise.