[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.

[ubertaco]

>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.

This is just epistemological nihilsm.

Maybe it should've been clear from your username, but it doesn't seem like you believe in the concept of truth itself in any useful way.

Consider: perhaps this is the product of your own biases? What then? Does that invalidate or prove your theory of the world? Or is it impossible to tell once you've adopted the notion that nothing can be verified (because that includes the claim that nothing can be verified)?

In any case, I'm sorry. That sounds like a really stressful way to live a life.

[wat10000]

I don't know what you expect from me. You're saying I can't trust anything online because bias creeps in. Then you're saying I should trust your links that say that Snopes isn't trustworthy. Huh?

So far what you've provided me has zero informational content. You've given me links, but you've also said that none of that stuff is believable, so all that's left is a puddle of goo.