Of course, we're not the first ones to be having this conversation. Here's Snopes themselves commenting on the phenomenon: https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/08/16/readers-think-satire-...
and here it is being described in the mass media: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/03/us/snopes-babylon-bee.htm...
Last I knew, Snopes isn't and cannot be run as a simple application of objective rules. You can follow guidelines, but debunking the type of Info Wars, or Trumpian, disinformation requires more mental effort than that. If it didn't, if it was the simple application of objective rules, there would be little value in the site.
Correction, you can. But unfortunately not everybody can.
1) whether content should be judged on it's intended vs perceived meaning
2) whether we should make an effort to reduce everything to be understandable to the lowest common denominator.
Alex Jones, for example, famously claims to be a satirist when it's convenient for him (e.g. when he's about to lose custody of his kids, or when he loses a lawsuit to the Sandy Hook parents that he slandered), but demands to be taken seriously on the same exact topics at other times.