[tinfoilhatter]

It's amazing that people think Snopes or other "fact-checkers" are reliable sources of information and represent ultimate truth, as if they're immune to bias and don't receive funding from people / organizations with their own agendas.

[ubertaco]

Snopes (like anywhere) is only as reliable as its track record of collecting firsthand sources and accurately reporting on their contents.

Which is to say: pretty good so far, in their case. For the future? Who knows. But they've done well up to now, at least.

[tinfoilhatter]

Actually no, their track record is not great: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes#2010s

[larkost]

Is this a meta-joke about links that don't prove what they are supposed to? If so, I don't really get it.

Most of the 2010s section is about some drama about managers/hosters. The only thing that is even remotely applicable is they fact checking a satirical website, and needing to add a "Labeled Satire" tag to clear up confusion around the intensions of the linked site (as opposed to combating people who use the article as an argument without labeling it as such).

[tinfoilhatter]

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-4730092/Snopes-brink-...

It was far more than drama about managers / hosters.

[ubertaco]

Okay, so you're linking a known tabloid whose sensationalized headline is still not about the actual content of the Snopes website being inaccurate, and instead is leaning hard on ad-hominems derived from legal drama between the then-divorcing husband-and-wife team who ran the website originally (with the husband continuing to run it after the wife had stopped working on it years ago).

The only thing in the Wikipedia section you linked that's actually about the content on the Snopes website is the thing where they had to create a label for "Satire" after people got mad that a right-wing satire site (literal, actual, intentional "fake news" but for comedy purposes) had its knowingly-false stories labeled as "false".

(don't come at me with "it was bias"; I lived in the right-wing evangelical bubble through my whole childhood and young adulthood all the way through to the early 2010s; I know the boy-who-cried-persecution complex that lives there, and I also know what the Babylon Bee both was and is quite well; they were never trying to be a real news source, so getting mad that their comedic fiction was labeled "false" is really a stretch).

You haven't exactly shaken my faith in their ability to do the thing they do: find primary sources, present them, and give a verdict based on those primary sources.

[wat10000]

They are generally quite good, and they provide ample background info for you to replicate (or repudiate) their findings on your own if you're so inclined.

What's amazing is that people think Snopes or other fact-checkers are automatically wrong. I assume this comes from people who make a habit of believing bullshit and can't handle being corrected.

[tinfoilhatter]

When there is no independent media, it's not difficult to find sources that back up the lies that Snopes and other fact-checkers peddle.

https://fair.org/home/the-digital-media-oligarchy-who-owns-o...

https://swprs.org/the-american-empire-and-its-media/

[wat10000]

What lies exactly?

[tinfoilhatter]

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-4730092/Snopes-brink-...

https://foodbabe.com/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont-after-read...

There's a plethora of examples on the internet of Snopes engaging in this type of behavior, if you're actually interested in learning about their problematic approach to their work.

[wat10000]

Your links are mostly about ownership, supposed sources of bias, and internal politics. I want to know what they've actually gotten wrong. The only example I'm seeing there is a claim about glyphosate, and the article is by the person Snopes said got it wrong, definitely no axe to grind there.

That example seems extremely weak. Is that all there is?

[tinfoilhatter]

Think about what you're asking me for here - you're asking me to produce examples of claims Snopes has made that are factually incorrect, when the results of search engines are curated by companies that pay the salaries of Snopes employees (through donations) and lobby whatever side of the political aisle whose narrative they want to see prevail.

I could give plenty of examples, but you'd likely turn around and visit your favorite re-affirming search engine or fact-checker to refute them. You're claiming that there is some arbiter of truth out there that is immune to bias, which is completely nonsensical. Bias creeps in everywhere because at the end of the day someone has to pay the salaries of these "fact-checkers" and the people paying them want to see a certain narrative upheld. Pretending that isn't the case is absurd.

The internet isn't some place where all perspectives on an issue are weighed against one another and the truthful ones are the ones that prevail and are returned by search engines. It was developed by DARPA and is effectively controlled by corporations like Google and Meta that partner with / receive funding from intelligence agencies and the military industrial complex.

I could share sources with you like these -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact#Funding

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes#Funding

Which demonstrate that these organizations receive funding from the organizations and people whose claims they are propping up as truth, but you'd readily dismiss that connection. You're not here to debate in good faith, and that's quite obvious.

I already shared a link that proves the founder of Snopes is a liar and fraudster and engaged in rampant plagiarism. You're still going to trust the company he founded to tell you the truth about the world. Engaging with you in this back and forth is asinine. You're obviously not after the truth, otherwise you'd do your own research into Snopes and other fact-checking organizations, instead of asking me to do it for you. Have a nice day.

[flail]

Um, is Snopes wrong about city cleaning crows, though? As that was the context of the original post. Which, by the way, doesn't say "Go, trust Snopes with everything; they can't be wrong!"

[tinfoilhatter]

The context of the original post was that people should check the sources they are sharing with others, and Snopes was suggested as a source worth sharing. I disagree that Snopes is a reliable source of information or has any interest in presenting a fair and balanced narrative, because of the conflict of interest created by who / what groups fund them. Same with Politifact, or any other fact-checking organization.