Perverse Downstream Consequences of Debunking

Re:Perverse Downstream Consequences of Debunking by Natsu on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @08:53PM (#27125447)

I just want to thank you for showing how effective this sort of propaganda is. A weakman is whenever you pick an easy claim to rebut instead of the harder one, it has nothing to do with your made up rules about what should or should not be fact-checked that seeks to minimize their agency, despite no evidence of them following such a rule in the first place. And the comment down thread just points out how that 'rule' you made up doesn't even apply to begin with.

So why should anyone attempt to prove that Snopes is following this rule when I have yet to see any evidence that this is, in fact, how Snopes operates, when even if we assume it is their standard, they don't appear to be following it very consistently?

That's a very odd burden of proof--asking me to prove that they follow a rule you just made up--don't you think?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Perverse Downstream Consequences of Debunking by allturtles on Wednesday May 12, 2021 @03:37PM (#27134281)

The function of Snopes is to address rumors that are flying around the Internet (originally via chain emails, now via Twitter/Facebook), not to address every claim anyone has ever made about something. I didn't make that up, it's right on the Snopes site: "...we fact-check whatever items the greatest number of readers are asking about or searching for at any given time" (https://www.snopes.com/faq/decide-fact-check)

If the claim that was flying around the Internet at the time was that Rosenberg is a convicted terrorist, that's the appropriate one to address.

I certainly don't claim that Snopes is perfect, or that their choices never exhibit political bias or bad judgment. But I think this case is an odd one to pick as the key evidence that Snopes is untrustworthy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Perverse Downstream Consequences of Debunking by Natsu on Thursday May 13, 2021 @09:51PM (#27149740)

The problem is that this is transparent bias. They may claim to adhere to that, yet it's clear in other cases that they've picked far more obscure Tweets instead of the viral ones.

This is intentional manipulation, they already know that most people read headlines (which are frequently the least accurate part of any story) and ratings fill a similar role.

Worse, they'll later compile the ratings into statistics and spread the misrepresentations further, all while claiming that technically in paragraph 7 they did admit the thing, which is why that's called a motte and bailey strategy.

[ Parent | on HN ]