[dragonwriter]

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”.

[0] see ratings definitions here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check-ratings/