It’s no so much that Snopes is being put forth as a legitimate source as that they’re being put forth as the last word. . Drop a link to Snopes and it’s a done deal, settled.
Everything in Snopes is well cited and researched. Any criticism of Snopes’ information must be equally well sourced and equally specific, or it’s surely nothing more than crankery.
I keep saying, and you snopes-deniers keep ignoring, the point that snopes cites THEIR sources. So no, don’t just assume it’s right because Snopes says so: check THEIR sources. They give them in every article. That’s how critical discourse works–it’s what we teach in every freshman comp course across the country–cite and explain your sources. That’s what Snopes does–they don’t just SAY something is true or not–they CITE their sources. So if you see someone giving Snopes as a source–yes. CLICK ON IT AND READ THEIR EXPLANATION. That’s what I do.
(sorry for the caps–I’m starting to sound like Melissa McCarthy playing some guy on SNL. But really, it ain’t rocket science and I don’t understand why the idea of a place citing credible sources to support or debunk an assertion is so hard to understand.)
“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.”
And a paper that’s been called out for spreading “fake news” and a liberal rag used this headline:
“Illegal Voting Gets Texas Woman 8 Years In Prison And Certain Deportation”
Most people that I know use Snopes for the stupid stuff like FB is going to do something to remove your privacy if you don’t do XYZ immediately.
For important things most use credible sources like a paper of record, for instance.
If you feel caps are needed, then use them. No need to apologize.
Fact-checking became a business over the last decade or so - which I believe is also a fact. Coming in after the fact and claiming to be the sheriff lends such a cachet of authority to whatever you opine… well, it’s a surprise it took this long for them to figure it out. Granted, promoting yourself as the ‘newspaper of record’ was an earlier, albeit soft-soaped, attempt at the same.
Links are pretty much links. I’ve clicked on enough offered as cites to know that sometimes they’re gold, sometimes they’re a browsing non-sequitur - if what they claim to source is in them, it’s inferred. (Not that I’m saying snopes’ kind are of the latter but more that the argument shouldn’t be whether they link cites, but whether they’re all of the former kind.)
Are they still doing only the urban myth things or have they staffed up and branched out into areas that are a little more nuanced as to exactly what the truth is?
^As I repeatedly said, the thing to do is check the links. I won’t Caps it again, but I don’t know how to make my point any clearer. They provide sources–check the sources. That’s what everyone has been saying. Glad you agree.
I don’t recall any of my own posts suggesting anything other than Snopes’ calls might merit the same due diligence as those of the rest of the fact check industry, garland.
That we agree is a good thing, yes.
Have any of you vigilant link-checkers ever found any citations that undermine the veracity of a Snopes conclusion? Because I haven’t.
Good grief…you DON’T do anything. You’re not their parent. If they want to post goofy badly sourced stuff, that’s their choice. Treat people’s Facebook pages like you treat their homes. I go to homes where I wonder…why on Earth do they believe that? Why have they made that choice, it’s nutty! What truly HORRIBLE reasoning! Look at that hideous piece of furniture. But I just THINK these things…I don’t comment on them. Why would I? If they have an opinion you don’t agree with, or are stating complete rubbish as though it’s fact…that’s really none of your concern. Why are people eager to be RUDE and correct others? You simply avoid the topic, or leave. If you MUST post the correct information, do it on your own page. Hit the “this doesn’t interest me” button if you have to. But above all…realize this: Facebook is meaningless. It’s a bunch of bored people peeing into the wind. No one cares about Facebook. If you do? You should examine your own life, and your potential control issues.
Why would you choose this analogy? Isn’t FB more like a commons? Or is it your home too? I’m confused.
As for me, when I’ve mistakenly posted something false I’ve been really glad when someone’s directed me to Snopes (or wherever) so I can adjust my views and not allow them to be distorted by easily identifiable falsehoods.
Disagree that one’s FB posts/page should be treated like one’s home.
One’s facebook posts/pages are more like being part of a conversation involving the entire FB community or a select circle of FB friends/acquaintances depending on one’s privacy settings.
If someone makes a FB post on something, it’s akin to making a public statement/starting a conversation with those who have access to said post. If the poster didn’t want to be challenged on a controversial post or corrected for an erroneous post filled with incorrect facts, s/he shouldn’t have made the post in the first place.
If one posts it, one should expect responses…including challenges and/or corrections as the viewers feel appropriate.
Are you referring to provably false facts(this bill was signed into law on this date) or judgments(studies show the bill had this effect, but those models rely on a whole host of underlying assumptions, which may or may not be true)? I try to avoid debating politics on FB.
LOL what? That doesn’t make a lick of sense.
By the way, if I’m in someone’s home and they flat-out lie, I’m going to call them out on it too. Just like they can delete me on facebook, they can ask me to leave.
Luckily, I don’t remember the last time that’s happened since I don’t regularly surround myself with people who spew lies and propaganda.
Spreading fake news ISN’T HARMLESS.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/04/politics/gun-incident-fake-news/
People have opinions. Really stupid ones.
People believe things that are not true. Sometimes passionately. (for instance, religion)
If you go on someone else’s page to correct them or argue with them about their beliefs…you’re a jerk.
Their page. They can put whatever dumb content they want on there. If you want to argue on your own page, that’s great. But inflicting your “wisdom” on others just makes you look like you have serious control issues. (even if you’re RIGHT…you’re still a jerk)
And yes, Facebook is personal. People put up pictures of their kids and their pets. The happiest and saddest moments of their lives. They share themselves.
Sometimes they share that they are, in fact, kinda dumb…and reveal that think really weird crap…and buy into the stupidest possible stories.
So what? That doesn’t give you the right to elect yourself editor of their page and correct them.
If you want to write a reaction or counterpoint, you can easily do this on your own page. You can voice a differing viewpoint without being controlling of their content or critical of their beliefs.
My FB Feed isn’t “someone else’s page,” though. If they don’t want people to interact with their posts, they can choose not to share them.
They can choose not to share them…and YOU can choose to turn off notifications:) It’s pretty simple. Rather than being a rude control freak…it’s just as easy to shake your head at their nonsense and unfollow them. You don’t have to unfriend them. If you’re ever curious about what they’re posting, you can just visit their page when your mood can tolerate nonsense.
You can correct as kindly or as dispassionately as possible. I believe it is unkind to allow a lie to keep circulating, and thereby let others possibly fall for it. It’s quite likely that that is how your friend first heard about it - someone else already had posted the lie and they are sharing it without checking first.
Sometimes it’s not a lie, but a story that’s a few years old so the “truth” of it isn’t relevant the same way anymore. No one is harmed by knowing that! I think it IS possible to correct things without being overbearing and jerky.
What’s funny is that I have actually pointed out how a fb friend who was a former Prof posted an outdated article from 3 years ago as if it was a current article publicly as I debated points he made I disagreed with in his class nearly 2 decades ago.
He not only didn’t take umbrage over my pointing it out, but thanked me and pointed out my actions to other FB friends as a good example of intellectual discourse.
Those are options, for sure, @MaryGJ , but your insistence that other people follow your idiosyncratic FB style seems far more “control freaky” than pointing out a friend’s factual error politely as part of the social interaction that social media is, um, for.
Interestingly enough, just debunked a dubious article by a White supremacist website claiming half a million civilians were killed by the Dresden bombings in early 1945 and that there was no legitimate military reason to attack the city posted by an acquaintance who is FB friends with a friend of mine. Post prompted friend to consider the source.
I concurred by pointing out that the official figures from records by the current German government and a 2014 study carried out by city officials are nowhere near that number. Not to mention Dresden was a crucial railway junction in the rail network of the Third Reich and had a large number of military bases and industries which made the city a legitimate military target by the standards of the time.