‘Fact-Checker’ Snopes Caught In The Biggest Fake News Scandal Of The Year

[Revmitchell]

If I were him I wouldnt bother. If he doesn't respond he's "walking away". If he does respond he's "doubling down". Ridiculous. He'd be stupid to engage this any further.

I don't know who you are responding to but there are some on this board who get very angry when something gets posted contrary to their own world view. So they engage in attacks both the source and the one on this board who posts it. That is called an ad hominem by the way. I see it differently. I never post and then say I believe any or all of the article I post to be fact, true, or something I agree with in part or whole.

I post because I find the topic interesting. It is not necessary for me to give my stamp of approval to any or all of it. They do not want to see certain topics posted so they flame the poster when it happens. Hey, they are the ones who are not at peace, I'm doing just fine but you are right no matter what I say they are going to flame me because someone has disagreed with their beloved snopes. To bad they cannot just agree to disagree.

 

[Use of Time]

I don't know who you are responding to but there are some on this board who get very angry when something gets posted contrary to their own world view. So they engage in attacks both the source and the one on this board who posts it. That is called an ad hominem by the way. I see it differently. I never post and then say I believe any or all of the article I post to be fact, true, or something I agree with in part or whole.

I post because I find the topic interesting. It is not necessary for me to give my stamp of approval to any or all of it. They do not want to see certain topics posted so they flame the poster when it happens. Hey, they are the ones who are not at peace, I'm doing just fine but you are right no matter what I say they are going to flame me because someone has disagreed with their beloved snopes. To bad they cannot just agree to disagree.

You know exactly who he is talking about. My irony meter on this post just exploded. Playing the poor little victim now. So transparent.

You should debate him with facts. If you had stuck with facts instead of your inaccurate claim you never would have heard from me.

This thread should be proof enough that he isnt interested in facts. He is interested in controlling the message by any means possible and will utilize any resources to do so. In his last post in which he pretends to not know who you are talking about (I think he knows exactly who you were engaging with even if he has me on ignore), he is copping out like crazy by just saying "aw shucks, I just posted an interesting article." I will still call out these articles when I can and will not apologize for it when it happens. Mitch cornered himself here and if you think he owned it then you and I will have to disagree.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I never said he owned it. I said he didn't walk away. I also called his posting style "lazy".

 

[InTheLight]

It simply doesn't say what you say it does. I quoted the part in your link where they admit the entire study was pretty much sound and fury, signifying nothing.

This is the conclusion:
Thus, there are about three times more fake pro-Trump articles than pro-Clinton articles, and the average pro-Trump article was shared more on Facebook than the average pro- Clinton article. To be clear, these statistics show that more of the fake news articles on these three fact-checking sites are right-leaning.

Why this happened was speculation.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

This is the conclusion:
Thus, there are about three times more fake pro-Trump articles than pro-Clinton articles, and the average pro-Trump article was shared more on Facebook than the average pro- Clinton article. To be clear, these statistics show that more of the fake news articles on these three fact-checking sites are right-leaning.

Why this happened was speculation.

Sigh. What it showed was out of 159 sampled "fake news" stories the conservative ones got shared more. There are no criteria for what constitutes "fake news" and they admit there is no way to determine how they picked these stories, nothing. It proves nothing.

And you can get into Stanford for writing "Black Lives Matter" 100 times. Hardly "scholarly".

 

[InTheLight]

I never post and then say I believe any or all of the article I post to be fact, true, or something I agree with in part or whole.

I post because I find the topic interesting. It is not necessary for me to give my stamp of approval to any or all of it.

Oh, OK, so you admit that you troll.

From the rules:
By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate,

 

[rsr]

For those coming in late:

Member posts fake news.

Other members point out it is fake news.

OP says it's true anyway, even though it may be fake news.

Members argue about whether OP walked away by insisting it's true even though it's fake news.

 

[Revmitchell]

For those coming in late:

Just read the thread for yourself. Good grief.

 

[InTheLight]

Sigh. What it showed was out of 159 sampled "fake news" stories the conservative ones got shared more. There are no criteria for what constitutes "fake news" and they admit there is no way to determine how they picked these stories, nothing. It proves nothing.

Russia hired 1,000 people to create anti-Clinton 'fake news' in key US states during election, Trump-Russia hearings leader reveals

Senate Intelligence Committee's Mark Warner claims the Kremlin targeted pivotal swing states

Russia targeted key states with anti-Clinton fake news, Trump-Russia hearings chairman reveals

 

[Bro. Curtis]

So now the Russians planted more fake news. I thought It was conservatives.

 

[InTheLight]

So now the Russians planted more fake news. I thought It was conservatives.

If you are going to parse everything down to the nanometer, it was the Senate Intelligence committee chair that said Russians planted conservative fake news, not me. As Revmitchell says, "I just post things that I find interesting. I don't have to agree with what was posted."

Also, no one made a comparative statement as to whether or not Russians planted more fake news than conservatives.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

If you are going to parse everything down to the nanometer, it was the Senate Intelligence committee chair that said Russians planted conservative fake news, not me. As Revmitchell says, "I just post things that I find interesting. I don't have to agree with what was posted."

Also, no one made a comparative statement as to whether or not Russians planted more fake news than conservatives.

Yes. He is making the allegations and the first witness in the case will be called soon.