I’m in the US so Reuters, NPR, AP. But there are so many “news” websites around anymore I usually take everything I read with a dose of skepticism and I look at Snopes and MediaBiasFactCheck often.
Snopes is not a publisher, but acting as the arbiter of truths. So if they have backing by biased entities, that leaves them vulnerable to be biased since these enitites are the stakeholders and customers, not people who might be relying on them to see facts.
Only the customer is served by these groups. You are not a customer of Snopes or MBFC.
There is no independent media. This doesn’t mean that there is no value in consuming it. If some source tells you they are “unbiased”, independent from advertisers/funding or free of (private) agenda they either intentionally lie or lack self-reflection.
There exists independent media. You clearly do not know your stuff and are willing to deny it as well. You have made up your mind, so this conversation is over.
If you have other suggestions in open to getting them, but I’m not sure how being a Facebook checker is a negative thing. Facebook needs LOTS of checking. Not a huge fan of Google Analytics, but I can hide myself from that stuff anyway, so also not a big deal really.
Facebook acts as a conservative hideout and has been one since ages. Why do you think Facebook is an objective outlet that will use Snopes legitimately?
I don’t think Facebook is anything but an awful cesspool. But stating Snopes is just as bad without evidence, doesn’t help the conversation.
As I stated if you have other suggestions I’m open to getting them. Just stating “Nope, bad!” Without giving evidence, outside of affiliation, doesn’t help the conversation, nor does it direct folks to trustworthy sources.
Snopes got employed for Facebook fact checking. You need more evidence than that for its association with a platform like that, responsible for terrorism and horrible regimes worldwide?
Yes I do need more evidence then that. Snopes is known as a trustworthy source. So it makes sense for Facebook to hire them. Did Snopes compromise their integrity it did they try to do the job the best they can?
What you’re suggesting is basically on the level of an attorney decides to defend someone in a murder, even if that person didn’t commit it, that the attorney should also be charged on the murder if found guilty. That’s not how it works.
You can attempt to do good, even while working with someone awful. Guilt by association is draconian.
Guilt by association is applicable in digital space, because you are not obliged to do it by anyone.
You employed reductio ad absurdum in conflating this with “reeee defendant attorney of murderer is murderer”. Pretty bad argument I would say. If you are trying to tell me associating with someone voluntarily is not a problem, then you need to change some of what you learnt.
Awesome, so instead of actually giving evidence and attempting to push the conversation forward by offering better solutions, instead you just insult people got it.
I’m in the US so Reuters, NPR, AP. But there are so many “news” websites around anymore I usually take everything I read with a dose of skepticism and I look at Snopes and MediaBiasFactCheck often.
Snopes has been a former Facebook checker and MBFC has Google Analytics. I would be a little afraid and cautious.
Yes please asses the credibility of their articles based on their associations with shady companies instead of the contents plausibility.
You think the funding and affiliations of organisations have nothing to do with the agenda they propagate? Oh summer child.
Doesn’t change the fact that you shouldn’t judge a book by its publisher.
Snopes is not a publisher, but acting as the arbiter of truths. So if they have backing by biased entities, that leaves them vulnerable to be biased since these enitites are the stakeholders and customers, not people who might be relying on them to see facts.
Only the customer is served by these groups. You are not a customer of Snopes or MBFC.
There is no independent media. This doesn’t mean that there is no value in consuming it. If some source tells you they are “unbiased”, independent from advertisers/funding or free of (private) agenda they either intentionally lie or lack self-reflection.
There exists independent media. You clearly do not know your stuff and are willing to deny it as well. You have made up your mind, so this conversation is over.
If you have other suggestions in open to getting them, but I’m not sure how being a Facebook checker is a negative thing. Facebook needs LOTS of checking. Not a huge fan of Google Analytics, but I can hide myself from that stuff anyway, so also not a big deal really.
Basically they’re better than nothing.
Facebook acts as a conservative hideout and has been one since ages. Why do you think Facebook is an objective outlet that will use Snopes legitimately?
I don’t think Facebook is anything but an awful cesspool. But stating Snopes is just as bad without evidence, doesn’t help the conversation.
As I stated if you have other suggestions I’m open to getting them. Just stating “Nope, bad!” Without giving evidence, outside of affiliation, doesn’t help the conversation, nor does it direct folks to trustworthy sources.
Snopes got employed for Facebook fact checking. You need more evidence than that for its association with a platform like that, responsible for terrorism and horrible regimes worldwide?
Yes I do need more evidence then that. Snopes is known as a trustworthy source. So it makes sense for Facebook to hire them. Did Snopes compromise their integrity it did they try to do the job the best they can?
What you’re suggesting is basically on the level of an attorney decides to defend someone in a murder, even if that person didn’t commit it, that the attorney should also be charged on the murder if found guilty. That’s not how it works.
You can attempt to do good, even while working with someone awful. Guilt by association is draconian.
Guilt by association is applicable in digital space, because you are not obliged to do it by anyone.
You employed reductio ad absurdum in conflating this with “reeee defendant attorney of murderer is murderer”. Pretty bad argument I would say. If you are trying to tell me associating with someone voluntarily is not a problem, then you need to change some of what you learnt.
Awesome, so instead of actually giving evidence and attempting to push the conversation forward by offering better solutions, instead you just insult people got it.