This is a really odd article. Snopes said "most false" and they seem to take issue with this. Snopes assessment seems right on and completely accurate with not much bias.
On the one hand, Snopes is correct that the $2,000 advocacy began in and continued from a $2,000 vs. $600 debate for the second stimulus checks, and that, viewed in that context, a third $1,400 check achieves what was originally being discussed.
OTOH, there is a legitimate point that the messaging was not updated after the $600 stimulus passed, and after that point one could (especially if they were not aware of the same actor’s advocacy prior) reasonably interpret it as a call for a third, $2,000, payment.
But most of the objections aren’t from people in that position, but from people people in the $600 camp or in the left-of-Biden monthly recurring payment camp.
I think “mostly false” is accurate, but I can also see why people might reasonably disagree as to where in the space [0] of neither-completely-true-nor-completely-false statements this falls; I don’t think “mostly true” would be reasonable, but I could definitely see “mixture” or, perhaps, if one reads “misled” as a fact claim of general effect on people recieving the claim, “unproven”.
OTOH, there is a legitimate point that the messaging was not updated after the $600 stimulus passed, and after that point one could (especially if they were not aware of the same actor’s advocacy prior) reasonably interpret it as a call for a third, $2,000, payment.
But most of the objections aren’t from people in that position, but from people people in the $600 camp or in the left-of-Biden monthly recurring payment camp.
I think “mostly false” is accurate, but I can also see why people might reasonably disagree as to where in the space [0] of neither-completely-true-nor-completely-false statements this falls; I don’t think “mostly true” would be reasonable, but I could definitely see “mixture” or, perhaps, if one reads “misled” as a fact claim of general effect on people recieving the claim, “unproven”.
[0] see ratings definitions here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check-ratings/