I think people have a right to post whatever they want to post on their Facebook. If they post it on mine or tag me then I reply with my opinion but I don’t challenge other people’s posts or defriend relatives just because we don’t see eye to eye on politics.
When it comes to close friends or siblings who aren’t faint hearted then it’s fair game to argue with them about controversial topics as well.
snopes is hypocritical at best…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#11534f2c1e02
I won’t defriend people for political disagreements.
However, I am of the opinion that while one has the right to post whatever they want on FB, once they do so, others have the corresponding right to reply and challenge them as they feel necessary*.
If one doesn’t want any replies…especially challenging ones, they shouldn’t have posted.
Well, I understand your point. It’s hard to show restrain against utter BS on regular basis. I usually change my viewing settings for them, don’t want it to pollute my newsfeed. To be honest, unless I’m really frank with them, I don’t add people on Facebook, even if they are relatives. Ones who go rouge after addition, I just unfollow them.
The bottom line is that you don’t need to know who the factcheckers are on Snopes–the point is they cite their sources–you don’t need to know who posted the sources–just check them yourself. That’s the point of fact-checking. That article posted above is rather ad hominem. It’s also ironic that the Forbes article stems from a Daily Mail article; when Wikipedia has just banned DM as a source because of unreliability. Or maybe Wikipedia also has a liberal bias. /sarcasm.
you believe whatever source you want, that is the cool thing about choice.everyone can and does dismiss anything that does not comport with their view. snopes is not a reliable source but I will not convince those of that mindset. but understand not everyone see snopes as the holy grail. it is just a website for certain people to go to reinforce their own beliefs. it is a niche website aimed at a certain group of the population. others see it for what it is. you choose.
We are doomed…
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.
And pointing out that people are full of it is not a violation of their freedom of speech. They’re allowed to post lies. I am allowed to, and in my opinion- I am OBLIGATED, point out that lie and combat it with truth.
A democracy or republic cannot survive when people are uninformed or buy the lies and propaganda. That’s why our founding fathers made damn sure that we had unequivocal freedom of the press.
Exactly^^^
That is why using snopes as a holy grail is so bad. It is a source for selective truth.
I for one want the truth and not snopes selective reality.
I don’t unfriend relatives because of their political beliefs, but I do “unfollow” so that their posts are not on my feed.
an acquaintance posted a picture of H. Clinton shaking hands with Osama Bin Laden. I posted a slopes link saying it wasn’t real. Where else would you go to check it’s authenticity?
Again–Snopes does not give opinions. It gives facts and credible sources. You have not given any evidence that its sources are not credible. You just don’t like it because apparently facts don’t agree with the slant of your opinions.
I have friends on the far left and the far right, and they all use Snopes.
“You have not given any evidence that its sources are not credible” …perhaps you can provide evidence that it is a legitimate source. (please do)
like I said I will not change your mind, but I simply have tried to point out that not everyone thinks it is the holy grail only people who agree with the agenda and spin snopes has think that. (this by the way is not unique to snopes it is just funny that I missed the official committee meeting on truth when they certified snopes as a pure source of the truth) . it is very political with an agenda and bias.
but you like it because apparently facts don’t agree with the slant of your opinions.(see what I did there)
I’ve seen Snopes be right on a number of things, but unless there’s someone willing to step up and say they’re right on absolutely everything…
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com great starting point for a sniff test on the original source of the ‘news’.
I’ve never seen them be wrong personally, and yes, I do check sources as well. I’ve seen Snopes address faux news from both sides of the aisle. If you are questioning the legitimacy of Snopes than the onus is on you to prove otherwise. Otherwise, it’s just your opinion, easy to type here without support. If it is so obvious that Snopes has bias, spin and agenda, as posited above, it shouldn’t be so hard to show evidence of that. Lack of follow through will be taken as lack of proof.
actually if a person puts snopes forward as a legitimate source that I (or anyone else)should trust the onus is on those pushing it as legit. until than buyer beware. any source by those who believe snopes to be a legit source showing it as a questionable reference is simply dismissed as a fake source. it is an alice in wonderland argument with those who believe it to be real. again I simply ask people who use it as a holy grail to understand not everyone gives it the stamp as a source of the truth .
@zobroward I’m talking about your claims here. No one here posted on your wall. You’ve chosen to come here and question the legitimacy of Snopes as a reliable source. Again, show some substantiation of your claim. If someone posts Snopes to one’s claim on Facebook, say, then that person is certainly within their right to discredit Snopes by posting their own evidence on the claim that is being called out. To me, just saying “Snopes is inaccurate” either here or on Facebook without providing solid sources to support it says more about that person’s level of reasoning and critical thinking than it says about Snopes.
Again, since you are not providing evidence of bias, spin, agenda or fallacy, that is only your opinion not fact based.
Of course, stuff that is factually true can be spun in various ways. For example, there was a voter fraud case in Texas recently. A center-left-leaning news site headlined it as “Republican green-card holder…”, while a right-leaning news site headlined it as “Mexican woman…”. The person convicted of illegally voting is a Mexican woman who has a green card, but registered to vote as a Republican and voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 and a Republican state attorney general in 2014.