[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.