Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CosmicDave t1_iw7f4d3 wrote

Reply to comment by EdoTve in People who post stories marked false by Snopes on Reddit fall into five groups: Reason to Disagree, Changed Belief, Steadfast Non-Standard Belief, Sharing to Debunk, and Sharing for Humor. Reducing misinformation requires different approaches for each group. by asbruckman

Wrong. You either agree with the facts, or you fall into the misinformation category. That is how facts work.

10

bizarre_coincidence t1_iw7v8jz wrote

Unless you are witnessing events firsthand, you have to trust someone to tell you what the facts are. If two information sources disagree on what the facts are, you either don’t know what to believe or you come up with your own process to decide which source to believe.

Facts may be objective, but we very rarely come up against facts. Rather, we come up against claims of facts, and we cannot independently assess whether these claims are true. We can only ask if they are consistent with other things we believe are true, or are consistent with other sources that we trust, and this is an imperfect strategy.

Even scientific facts which are in principle verifiable might not be in practice. And since science makes plenty of counterintuitive claims, there is legitimate reason to be skeptical of things that are known to be factual.

The point is that it isn’t that simple. We take for granted that we know what the facts are, and that they are self evident. The truth is much more complicated.

5

EdoTve t1_iw7fg08 wrote

Does snopes only post aseptic facts 100% of the time?

4

shadowrun456 t1_iw7gem5 wrote

Can you link a specific example where snopes presented untrue information as fact?

19

EdoTve t1_iw7gr44 wrote

I concede that I do not know as I'm not american and do not follow snopes, but is it wrong in general to assume that a singular outlet is not an absolute source of truth?

−15

CosmicDave t1_iw7ld7y wrote

We are talking about facts. You keep using the word "assume". That's not how facts are found.

10

MattVanAndel t1_iw8iyx8 wrote

The thing is, Snopes shows their work. If you think their result is fishy, incomplete, inaccurate etc you can follow all their citations and reasonings.

I’d argue: it’s safe to say that Snopes acts in good faith, which is distinctly different than calling them a “source of truth”. They aggregate and digest available factual sources, and are not afraid to update their assessments when available facts change. It’s a very different thing than being a “source of truth” themselves; it’s more scientific than that.

5

Pushmonk t1_iw9q7jr wrote

Ahhh, so you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. That makes sense.

2

BodhiRomeo t1_iw7jz37 wrote

The fact you need someone to link publicly available information is sad. Snopes uses opinion pieces to claim studies are false quite often. Studies aren't facts they are studies, disagreeing with the study isn't misinformation but saying a study is misinformation is denying science... Yes snopes failed the scientific method and posts misinformation quite often. Snopes is not a reliable source of information.

−18

shadowrun456 t1_iw7l6ad wrote

The fact that you can't link a single example to back up your claim, so instead you repeat the same claim in several different ways as if that would make any difference, is even sadder.

20

MattVanAndel t1_iw8k9pp wrote

They posted one link to a biased right-wing propaganda site that, itself, demonstrates how Snopes acts in good faith based on all currently available data. Said article attempts to spin that as a bad thing.

5

Buckscience t1_iw7qm27 wrote

The burden of proof is on the accuser. You've stated they are objectively not a a reliable source of information. That is your assertion to make, but you don't get to just tell others "oh, go look it up", and expect that to be taken as proof of your assertion.

16

Extension-Ad-2760 t1_iw8g8qg wrote

Tell you something. I previously assumed that snopes was generally reliable, but as everything, should be taken with a decent bit of salt. The fact that you can't provide a single example of where they're unreliable really increases my trust in them.

6

Sweet_Musician4586 t1_iw7wxz8 wrote

They also misrepresent quotes and information often in their conclusions to come to a politically biased end. You could see this a lot with trump and joe biden

−4

Pushmonk t1_iw9q4s0 wrote

They link to all of their sources. You can go check them yourself.

2

whichpricktookmyname t1_iwyfa7j wrote

>You either agree with the facts, or you fall into the misinformation category.

Imagine positing this to, of all places, a board that is supposedly about science.

1

Fun-Dog-6459 t1_iwair8q wrote

And I'm always right. Why would anyone else not want me king of the world?

0