Snopes Beclowns Itself

eerok said:
I think that's a good list, except that I prefer to use DuckDuckGo over Google Search.

That being said, I refuse to discuss politics with some of my friends because they fail to make the effort I do to get the most accurate information possible. I'm afraid that very few people make any kind of effort at all.
Click to expand...
DuckDuckGo does not follow your search history, correct?
 
Minoosh said:
DuckDuckGo does not follow your search history, correct?
Click to expand...
Correct. Google uses an undisclosed number (but it is known to be over 40) of parameters to tailor search results, even if you're not logged on. DDG gives bare untailored results. You can turn on location filtering if you want, but you don't have to.
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
I view the term "stealing" as a legal concept, not a moral one.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile in the real world the word "steal" has less restricted meaning. "She stole my boyfriend" is an example. "I was going to buy my mum that for xmas but my brother stole my idea."

eta: Assuming that in example 1 they do not live in a state allowing slavery and that in 2 the speaker did not patent his idea.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Correct. Google uses an undisclosed number (but it is known to be over 40) of parameters to tailor search results, even if you're not logged on. DDG gives bare untailored results. You can turn on location filtering if you want, but you don't have to.
Click to expand...


You can turn that off

Settings > Search Settings > Do not use private results
 
I use firefox so forgive me if I'm wrong here, but if you google something in chrome's incognito mode, doesn't that basically achieve what DDG does?
 
No. All incognito mode does is not-save cookies, browsing history, and temp files (like downloaded images) after you end your session. Google still sees your IP address when you make the search, and will still use it to tailor results to a degree no matter how many privacy settings you turn off.
 
isissxn said:
Don't you think that's sort of a joke, though? How can anyone steal the idea for a talk show? Once that idea was out there, it was out there. There's not much to steal. And the hosts of the first talk shows were white guys, so...

Its probably a joke.
Click to expand...

I completely made that up myself. But evidently somebody else thought the "alludes to a deeper truth" from Snopes deserved to be mocked as well.
 
Looks like Snopes really wanted this rumor to be true (like some people on this thread), but they couldn't prove it. So they used "unproven", even though they practically admitted this particular rumor is false.

Certain people talking about bias and fervently justifying Snopes' conclusion break all the ironymeters. Pathetic.

This kind of things will only make it easier for right-wingers to dismiss Snopes in future (when I used it in past, all they could do is vague complaints about liberal bias). In other words, what Snopes did here is harmful to themself, their reputation and counterproductive.
 
I guess I don't understand why it makes such a difference if we all agree with the categorization, when Snopes then goes on to cite all their evidence right there?

So, you and I read the same Snopes piece. You feel that the "Unproven" label fits, I maybe say, "This seems more like a 'False' to me." Either way, we both have all the necessary information to draw a conclusion, because Snopes provides it. So why quibble over their final label? It's less important than the article that explains how they reached their conclusion, whatever it was.

I've disagreed with Snopes before. There was a quite recent time where they'd labeled something "False," and after I'd read all their evidence, I didn't think it was strong enough to agree that "False" was warranted. But it didn't make any difference, because I still had all the information.

I can't understand why the Snopes labels are such a big deal when the supporting evidence is right there for one to read, assess, and ultimately agree with or disagree with. Unless a person is adamantly refusing to read the articles, what difference does it make? People can disagree with the conclusions. They're still provided with the evidence, and that's the important part.
 
Last edited:
isissxn said:
I guess I don't understand why it makes such a difference if we all agree with the categorization, when Snopes then goes on to cite all their evidence right there?

So, you and I read the same Snopes piece. You feel that the "Unproven" label fits, I maybe say, "This seems more like a 'False' to me." Either way, we both have all the necessary information to draw a conclusion, because Snopes provides it. So why quibble over their final label? It's less important than the article that explains how they reached their conclusion, whatever it was.

I've disagreed with Snopes before. There was a quite recent time where they'd labeled something "False," and after I'd read all their evidence, I didn't think it was strong enough to agree that "False" was warranted. But it didn't make any difference, because I still had all the information.

I can't understand why the Snopes labels are such a big deal when the supporting evidence is right there for one to read, assess, and ultimately agree with or disagree with. Unless a person is adamantly refusing to read the articles, what difference does it make? People can disagree with the conclusions. They're still provided with the evidence, and that's the important part.
Click to expand...

I think a reason a label can be important is the same reason a headline can be important, which is oddly enough one of the reasons Snopes is needed.

A lot of people, some might say most people, don't dive very deeply. Headlines, and labels get bandied about on social media, in conversation etc and get confused for information.

Sure, a thoughful person can check for themselves, but enough people will take the soundbite version and run with it. So the language matters. It can have an effect on public discourse. You might say that's the fault of people for not doing the reading, and I'd agree. But knowing that people will behave that way should be a good motivation to be thoughtful about headlines and labels.
 
Mader Levap said:
Looks like Snopes really wanted this rumor to be true (like some people on this thread), but they couldn't prove it. So they used "unproven", even though they practically admitted this particular rumor is false.

Certain people talking about bias and fervently justifying Snopes' conclusion break all the ironymeters. Pathetic.

This kind of things will only make it easier for right-wingers to dismiss Snopes in future (when I used it in past, all they could do is vague complaints about liberal bias). In other words, what Snopes did here is harmful to themself, their reputation and counterproductive.
Click to expand...


Seems like an odd hill for Snopes to pick to die on. There are a lot more significant questions to use.

It seems more to me that they are using their own published criteria, and some people are unhappy with that.

There isn't much use in worrying about those people's beliefs. Snopes isn't going to change them or what they already believe about Snopes' impartiality. They're going to dismiss Snopes regardless.
 
isissxn said:
So, you and I read the same Snopes piece. You feel that the "Unproven" label fits, I maybe say, "This seems more like a 'False' to me." Either way, we both have all the necessary information to draw a conclusion, because Snopes provides it. So why quibble over their final label?
Click to expand...



Perhaps you should direct this question at the people who insisted that not labeling it "False" was tantamount to Snopes "Beclowning" themselves.
 
Horatius said:
Perhaps you should direct this question at the people who insisted that not labeling it "False" was tantamount to Snopes "Beclowning" themselves.
Click to expand...

Seems to me this question is directed at anyone who would care to respond, including those you have suggested Isis’s not single out. Why do you think it is necessary to direct it only to a small specific group?
 
Steve said:
Seems to me this question is directed at anyone who would care to respond, including those you have suggested Isis’s not single out. Why do you think it is necessary to direct it only to a small specific group?
Click to expand...



Because he prefaces his question with "I guess I don't understand why it makes such a difference", in a thread started by someone who is insisting not only that it should be changed, but that it was literally clownish that it ever had the other label. The "Unproven" camp were not the ones going out of their way to get their panties in a twist over an obscure Snopes article. When you want to know why a fight started, it's usually most efficient to ask the person who threw the first punch.
 
I was directing my question at anyone who disagrees with the position I stated, which appears to include the OP. I was also sort of just directing it outward, because I have heard these nitpicky arguments about Snopes classifications before, and they annoy me.

The labels - True, False, Unproven - don't matter as much as the content (which tends to be very thorough). I guess it just makes people seem lazy to me when they complain about Snope-verdicts, because they have access to the evidence and can still draw their own conclusions. I think Snopes does a good job. I guess that wasn't clear from my post, sorry.

Also, not that it matters really, but I'm not a he.


ETA - Horatious, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the more I read your last post the more confused I get. Did you read my whole post or just the line "I guess I don't understand why it makes such a difference?" I think my post meant the opposite of what you got out of it (unless I'm confused, which is always possible). My question basically was directed at the OP, as well as anyone who holds his/her same position.
 
Last edited:
isissxn said:
Also, not that it matters really, but I'm not a he.
Click to expand...


My apologies.


ETA - Horatious, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the more I read your last post the more confused I get. Did you read my whole post or just the line "I guess I don't understand why it makes such a difference?" I think my post meant the opposite of what you got out of it (unless I'm confused, which is always possible). My question basically was directed at the OP, as well as anyone who holds his/her same position.
Click to expand...



Perhaps I misread your intent, but it felt like a "both sides do it" kind of argument, when it was clear that one side does it far more often than the other.
 
A few observations....

The Claim is that Sanders paid Childress $1,200. It doesn't say when that was. WIkipedia says that Sanders was selling his chicken from 1930, based on recipes he learned as a child, but didn't come up with the franchised restaurant model until 1952. If Sanders paid Childress $1,200 it would have been a tidy sum; in 1952 less so. Even then, if he paid he, then by definition he did not "steal" anything. Plenty of people throughout history have sold an idea or a piece of work for a on-off fee that subsequently made the buyer millions or - in this case - billions.

The fact that the picture of "Children" was traced to a completely unconnected advert suggests embellishment that should haver edged Snopes to a more unequivocal "False," rather than sitting on the fence and trying to justify the bogus claim.

It is noted that Sanders may have drawn on one recipe, several, and/or further honed it himself, particularly as regards the cooking method in the franchising model. It would also seem unlikely that any preceding recipe was truly unique in itself, or devised solely by whoever he may have got it/them from.

But, you know, a simplistic "white guy steals black idea" dressed with an unconnected image seems to appeal to some people....
 
Information Analyst said:
The fact that the picture of "Children" was traced to a completely unconnected advert suggests embellishment that should haver edged Snopes to a more unequivocal "False," rather than sitting on the fence and trying to justify the bogus claim.
Click to expand...

You, and others here, seem to be forgetting that the Category "False" is for claims that can be categorically proven to be False.

While there is certainly evidence that this particular case is not true, it is also not provable beyond all doubt that it actually is False, and thus it cannot be categorised as False.

Since it clearly also cannot be shown to be true either, then it by definition falls into the "Unproven" Category.

Many Historical myths for which there just isn't enough evidence to determine 100% Truth or Falsity are in the same boat.

Perhaps you all need to see Unproven as meaning, "It's probably not true, but we can't absolutely prove that, so we can't say it's False," instead of trying to claim that it means that they want it to be true, but can't prove it.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
Perhaps you all need to see Unproven as meaning, "It's probably not true, but we can't absolutely prove that, so we can't say it's False," instead of trying to claim that it means that they want it to be true, but can't prove it.
Click to expand...

This.

True: Proven to be true beyond reasonable doubt.
False: Proven not to be true beyond reasonable doubt.
Unproven: Failed to make the case that it happened, but we can't prove it didn't. In other words, there's no evidence for this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom