Disappointing to see that it relies on Snopes for "fact checking". Also disappointing to see that what constitutes "quality journalism" is decided by a giant technology company. This is a big step backwards.
One example is this case: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-compliant-citizenr...
There's also the fact that the team behind the website does not have a stellar reputation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai...
Snopes debunked Infowars' absurd mischaracterization of the Ivey email (which was however poorly written in confusing pretentious wording), and produced the evidence in full to justify its position.
Regarding your second link, I read it and don't see what you are driving at. It says that Snopes has some politically engaged staff members, and doesn't do individual bylines, and someone got divorced.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-al...
The very first sentence of this content illustrates the kind of shady journalism that I would not expect to see from anyone entrusted to be a "Fact checker". They make a reference to "violence in Charlottesville" and the deaths of three people. Two of those deaths are the consequences of a completely unrelated helicopter accident. Here is a news story about the helicopter accident: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/08/1...
The title is "FACT CHECK: Are Antifa and the Alt-Right equally violent". This content goes on to make the suggestion to the reader that Antifa is not organizing any violence (this basis on which the author forms this opinion is categorically false, based on ample evidence around the internet showing cases of organized violence, not in response to "alt right rallies").
Furthermore, there are consequences to what Snopes does when they rate you false. For example:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-washing-machine/
i.e. Did CNN Purchase an Industrial-Sized Washing Machine to Spin News?
resulted in this:
https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/969405110324523008/
In the abstract, "fact checking" is not a reliable solution. It is the same problem - if the journalists are not trustworthy, why are the fact checkers trustworthy? Furthermore, Snopes is not reliable.
In the opt link, it's a "news" item, not a "Fact-check" with a ruling. You pick out mild vague statements as "discrediting", while ignoring all the major points and claims in the Snopes articles.
The second link is a fact-check, which we can all agree (right") is an accurate fact-check
FB banned a self-identified obvious satire article being reposted out of context as non-satire. Can you find an example of FB banning a non-fake article based on Snopes' ruling?
Again, what's the problem here?
They rated this article as "pants on fire" for reporting on something that came directly from the mouth of a public official. The politifact intern actually reached out to the official in question and he personally confirmed that he gave the outlet bad information, and yet it retains the rating that insinuates intentional lying and misleading. I think it's infuriating that Google is getting away with giving these institutions an elevated voice. They do not hold an ounce of the journalistic integrity that they claim to and they make little effort to be nonpartisan.
edit: The issue isn't with any particular institution, it's the general problem of any authority claiming to be an objective purveyor of truth and Google giving anyone like that an elevated voice. Even if it's not corrupt now, it's corruptible, and it serves no purpose. People need to come to decisions on their own.
(edit: for the record, I feel it is necessary to say that I do not regularly read this blog, I came across the fellowshipoftheminds.com post as a result of seeing the politifact article on reddit, I do not endorse the site in question)
> A website pushing conspiracy theories claimed that the March For Our Lives permit was actually prepared months in advance.
> We contacted the police officer referred to in the story who confirmed that the story is inaccurate and the permit was actually issued 11 days prior to the march.
> We rate this story Pants on Fire.
The police officer said they made an honest mistake. The websites that are spreading the mistake have ostensibly ignored the correction. How is that not intentional?
But, sure, reckless disregard for basic journalistic norms and fact checking because the story fit their preconceived nsrrstive seems reasonably to warrant “pants on fire”.
It's a valid question: large events like this march require considerable coordination among public services and permits are necessary to make sure that police and EMS and public transport can react, and navigating the bureaucratic machine for getting a permit is, by official D.C. guidelines, estimated to take at least 6 months. This march took place only a bit more than a month after the Parkland shooting. If people are to believe that this large march was organically organized in just a month, it must be the case that some public officials pulled strings and made exceptions for them, and that is a story in its own right. Or, on the other hand, it must be the case that this march was planned in advance of the shooting, and was thus not organized organically by student groups, but was perhaps something that was intended to happen anyway, but was repurposed in light of the shooting in Florida, which would change a purportedly grassroots event into something with much less meaning and arguably paints the true organizers as opportunists.
Well, this someone sent an email in search of that question, and got a response, and this website reported on it: they heard that a permit application was received prior to the shooting. I don't see how it's their responsibility to continually check back with the officer that was consulted in order to be sure that he really meant what he said. But, as mentioned, the article contains mention of the fact that the officer has since rescinded his date, and another article is linked that pieces together the timeline.
I don't see how it's fair to label them as liars. They haven't lied. They reported on a response from a public official. They've even edited the article to make mention of the rescinding of the comment. What more should they do, remove the article outright?
(edit: for the record, I feel it is necessary to say that I do not regularly read this blog, I came across the fellowshipoftheminds.com post as a result of seeing the politifact article on reddit, I do not endorse the site in question)
The March for Science, which originated largely from a Reddit thread, happened in 4 months: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Science
The Women's March was organized in 2.5 months: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Women%27s_March
edit: In the "update" post, the blogger of the allegation basically ignores the explanations for the confusion and goes with the conspiracy. At that point, I think it's reasonable for Politifact to say the blogger is acting in bad faith:
> Given the different dates he’s given for when Metro PD received the permit application and when Metro PD issued the permit, we have no reason to believe Officer Scott Earhardt. In all probability, his first email of March 28 to Dammegard’s contact is most likely the truthful one — that D.C. Metropolitan Police Department received an application for a permit for March For Our Lives “several months” before the March. That in turn implies that, contrary to how the March had been presented to the American people, the Parkland school shooting is not the inspiration for March For Our Lives and may even have been planned and contrived.
https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2018/04/05/parklathe-curiou...
Even in the followup/correction post, they state both:
"In the March 28th email, Officer Earhardt states:
“In reference to your inquiry concerning the March For Our Lives Demonstration, here in the District of Columbia on March 24, 2018. MPD received a permit application several months prior to the actual event, and there was several months of planning for this large event.”"
and then also says: "we have no reason to believe Officer Scott Earhardt." [regarding his correction]
So they are taking two contradicting quotes from one person, and saying one of them is true and the other is false.
What are you trying to argue here?
As an example arguments used by pro-gun advocates are marked as false. Here's a specific example:
They falsify a claim that doctors kill more people than guns https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/doctors-kill-more-people-t...
Yet this article linked on hacker news article states that medical error is the third biggest cause of death in the USA. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11627213
I used to have many more examples, but the reality is that the facts that they "objectively" check aren't necessarily unbiased.
That's like saying that "hospitals cause most cancer deaths" because people who have cancer are in the care of professionals before they expire.
People who die from guns aren't being euthanized from already impending death.
Also congratulations if that's literally the most severe case of ad hominem you've ever seen.
Also worth noting: I linked that article because it was the first source I found via searching that highlighted all the shady stuff that founders have done. I'm not aligned with the additional views of the author of that article.
The thing about that is that the "article" doesn't mention a single case of where Snopes was wrong (I only read the first few pages, so they might've buried something, which would be strategically unwise). Which means they want a character assassination because they can't argue the on the issues alone.
The contents might be true, or not, but it doesn't affect the argument.