Slashdot Mirror
Fact-checking and Rumor-dispelling Site Snopes.com Held Hostage By vendor (savesnopes.com)
Snopes.com, which began as a small one-person effort in 1994 and has since become one of the Internet's oldest and most popular fact-checking sites, is in danger of closing its doors. From a report: Since our inception, we have always been a self-sustaining site that provides a free service to the online world: we've had no sponsors, no outside investors or funding, and no source of revenue other than that provided by online advertising. Unfortunately, we have been cut off from our historic source of advertising income. We had previously contracted with an outside vendor to provide certain services for Snopes.com. That contractual relationship ended earlier this year, but the vendor will not acknowledge the change in contractual status and continues to essentially hold the Snopes.com web site hostage. Although we maintain editorial control (for now), the vendor will not relinquish the site's hosting to our control, so we cannot modify the site, develop it, or -- most crucially -- place advertising on it. The vendor continues to insert their own ads and has been withholding the advertising revenue from us. Our legal team is fighting hard for us, but, having been cut off from all revenue, we are facing the prospect of having no financial means to continue operating the site and paying our staff (not to mention covering our legal fees) in the meanwhile.
... by going to snopes?
Already debunked by snopes.
The vendor continues to insert their own ads and has been withholding the advertising revenue from us.
How is this not outright theft? If they are failing to pay you money they are contractually obligated to pay, wouldn't that invalidate the contract, or put them in an actionable position for damages?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
That contractual relationship ended earlier this year, but the vendor will not acknowledge the change in contractual status and continues to essentially hold the Snopes.com web site hostage.
There's almost always 2 sides of the story, and Snopes isn't doing themselves any favors failing to acknowledge the other side's grievances. I'd sure want to understand the big picture here before donating.
This is precisely why you must always OWN your DNS and Hosting yourself. Never, EVER let someone else register and host your domain for you. Always DO IT YOURSELF or find yourself in the same boat with Snopes.
That this is not true. It's a rehashed story from a couple of years ago.
*citation needed
First, snopes.com is registered with networksolutions.com, not their hosting provider (Peer 1). It's not clear here that there's anything stopping Mikkelson et al from grabbing a backup (or even live version) of the site, getting set up on a new web host, and then switching the IP, like many others who have had a hosting provider suddenly go crap on them. Snopes appears to run on Wordpress, and, well, it's really not that hard to yank a Wordpress site from one provider and get it up on another.
Second, they're looking for $500k. $500k? Because of problems at their web host?
And... if they're not migrating to a new web host, won't most of the $500k being donated go back to the web host that is ostensibly holding their data hostage, rewarding that web host for being jerks?
This really doesn't make sense.
Do the owners of Snopes.com own and control the snopes.com domain name? If so, move the site, and redirect the DNS to point to your own servers. Do the owners of Snopes.com have a copy of the site? It's their copyrighted code and content. A vendor can't "hold it hostage", or even hold it at all without explicit rights to do so. If the vendor doesn't have a valid contract (i.e.; if the contract expired or was legally terminated), hosting Snopes.com without permission is a copyright violation... which is a very expensive problem for that vendor. Any number of lawyers would take this case on a contingent fee basis... no up-front money needed... if it's such a clear cut case of a vendor having no rights to host snopes.com, but refusing to give snopes.com access to their code and content, or to their domain or DNS. Some details are clearly missing here... or the owners of snopes.com are technically and legally illiterate.
Domain registrar is Network Solutions. Contact support, take control the domain after confirming ownership and copy the site to another vendor or host and change DNS. I had a small business admin contact pass away once and I KNOW Network Solutions will work with you to get control back to the appropriate party.
They can't manage their domain, but we're supposed to believe that if we send them $10 they can manage that?
nope.
It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
Agreed, they have gotten way too political, resulting in turning off approximately 50% of their readership. When a "fact check" says something is "false" because even though it is true, it didn't push A, B, and C talking points of the "fact checker's" political agenda... good riddance, I'm not weeping over their (potential) demise. Debunking Bill Gates handout rumors was their strong point and they should have stuck to that.
As companies move to the cloud, expect more of the same. Sure, you can have the data but we own the url and the app. Or sure we'll give you the app code but exporting all the data into something convertible to a new cloud dbs provider is going to be expensive.
In other worlds, same old same old. Vendor-lockin isn't a new concept any more than fake news is (National Enquirer)
*citation needed
It centralizes the effort and makes it less time-consuming to at least somewhat defend yourself against stupidity.
For a site run by a couple retardedly-biased hyperliberals, they keep their facts surprising-straight. A few disputes around the edges in tone from time to time, but nothing Hannity-like. Mostly they stay away from political opinion pieces, anyway, so they're restricted on how much political bullshit they can worm into their material.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
In August of 2015, Snopes entered a revenue-share/content and ad management agreement with a company called Proper Media, formed earlier that very year. In early 2016, Proper arranged to buy Barbara’s [Estranged wife of the owner] share of Bardav [the company they two started, owner of Snopes], replacing her as co-owner of the company.
Then help snopes.com to rebuild the site with them holding the full ownership.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
They always give detailed sources for their facts, so they're all right with me.
You can't. The accusations are primarily from butt-hurt Republicans who got pissed off that so many of Trump's lies were called out as lies on the site. Their 'proof' that Snopes is making political statements is basically just a bunch of "technically, it wasn't a lie because..." followed by an opium fever dream of hatred against everything and everyone that doesn't support Trump.
Citation needed.
Not an assertion, a citation: who said exactly what and when, and show me a link.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Here's an example: http://www.snopes.com/orlando-shooter-was-democrat/
Yeah, he was a Democrat. But you can't say he was a Democrat, you have to also say that a person's political affiliation could have changed, and we don't know what was in his heart, and-and... OBVIOUSLY THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE GOOD GUYS, SO HE WASN'T A TRUE DEMOCRAT, OKAY???
Snopes doesn't have a political agenda, nosirree!
I know for a fact that Johnny Carson had a woman (not that clown Gabor, but another with a white dress) on that asked him, "Do you want to pet my p@ssy?". The segment was broadcast on a tribute to the man like 20+ years ago, but it happened. Snopes stated that it wasn't true. Good riddance. http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/...
It's worth understanding that there are, as always, two sides to the story. You can get a sense of the side of the "vendor" (otherwise known as 50% shareholder) by reading this.
Indeed, facts have a well-known liberal bias which only seems to become more pronounced over time! Those fact-checking sites don't even acknowledge alternative facts! Luckily there's conservapedia and infowars to bring some balance to the situation.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Fallout from Barbara and David Mikkelson's divorce (the Bardav company) - Proper Media who bought Barbara Mikkelson's 50% share vs David Mikkelson's other 50%. Proper Media alleges David misused funds from Snopes to pay for the divorce and honeymoon with new wife/Snopes employee Elyssa Young. Proper media also claims one of its shareholders - Vincent Green - secretly conspired to help David get control of Snopes. David says he terminated Proper Media's contract fair and square.
So basically...sounds like a story that needs fact checking...
https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/24/snopes-seeks-crowdfunding-in-ownership-battle/
https://www.poynter.org/2017/snopes-is-locked-in-a-legal-battle-for-control-of-its-website/465615/
https://www.courthousenews.com/fact-checker-snopes-owners-accused-corporate-subterfuge/
This couple you refer to, would that be the Koch brothers?
Here's an example: http://www.snopes.com/orlando-shooter-was-democrat/
Yeah, he was a Democrat. But you can't say he was a Democrat, you have to also say that a person's political affiliation could have changed, and we don't know what was in his heart, and-and... OBVIOUSLY THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE GOOD GUYS, SO HE WASN'T A TRUE DEMOCRAT, OKAY???
Ok, here is the content at the top of the link you gave...
In 2006 Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen registered to vote as a Democrat, but his recent political leanings are unknown.
And if you scroll down further, it has "claim" and the rating is mixture (not either true or false). So what are you trying to show here???
Snopes is way overrated. Relying on Snopes as an authority for fact checking news is foolhardy.
I think you're missing the point. You don't use Snopes to fact check the news-- there are sites like factcheck and politifact for that. You use Snopes for debunking those god-damned "memes" that fly around like mosquitoes, like (the front page on Snopes today) the photo of a whale in a Venice canal, or don't buy Kelloggs Bran flakes because they contain dried ground-up cow dung, or that Donald Trump married Madonna in a secret ceremony in Utah.
Snopes often provides few, if any, additional details beyond what has already been published elsewhere.
Most of these idiotic internet rumors aren't debunked elsewhere.
Difficult to effectively fact-check CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, etc without field reporters to gather details on the ground and various quality sources. Simply regurgitating and comparing what other news sources have published, alone, isn't much of a fact-check.
This isn't the site to fact-check CNN or the NY Times. This is a site that debunks idiot email "memes" showing me a civil-war era photograph of soldiers that shot a pterodactyl.
Why pretend that the couple that runs it didn't admit to a bias and to intentionally lying?
I'm not pretending anything. You are asserting a fact. I want a source for that fact.
Since you don't seem to be able to come up with a source, I assume you don't have one, and you're making it up.
If you do show a source, I'll look at it.
Did I miss some big news? When did snopes go back to being a fact checking site?
See that "Preview" button?
Claim: Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen was a Democrat.
Rating: Mixture
WHAT'S TRUE: Omar Mateen registered to vote as a Democrat in the state of Florida back in 2006.
WHAT'S UNDETERMINED: His U.S. political affiliation (if any) at the time of the shooting is unknown.
Seems a reasonable summary of the facts to me. The guy registered to vote as a Democrat ten years ago, we don't know what his political affiliation if any is now.
I suppose you're objection is that this is tagged as "mixture." Since the very third line of the article specifically states that he was registered to vote as a Democrat in 2006, they don't seem to trying to hide this. I just want the facts.
They have an article debunking the myth that Marilyn Monroe had six toes. As part of the evidence against this, they wrote:
The problem is that isn't true. My wife is a podiatrist who amputates toes routinely as part of her job. I discussed this with her and she said that the whole "relearning to walk" thing is in itself a myth, and that even people who have their big toes removed generally do just fine in no time. Try it yourself: walk across the floor with your big toe pulled upward so it doesn't hit the ground. Easy, right? And that's the big toe; a vestigial extra-pinky toe hanging off the side would contribute almost nothing to balance or your gait.
I wrote them with this information. They replied, quite defensively, that I was wrong and that she did not have six toes. Uh, yeah, I totally agree! I still think they should have removed the invalid evidence that contradicts expert testimony. If you're proving that "1 + 1 = 2 because cats have wings", and I tell you cats don't actually have wings, it doesn't invalidate your premise but it does suggest that you'd want to update your proof.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
In that particular article, I think it was more a response for claims at the time that he was a Bernie person and hated Trump. Those more specific speculations were not supported by any evidence beyond a 10 year old voter registration record.
So yes, the claim that he 'was a democrat' is true, the leap to infer very specific things about the election cycle of the time was not justified.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Pretty sure being a Registered Democrat makes a person a Democrat. In fact, pretty sure that it is the only thing that makes a person a Democrat.
"His name was James Damore."
Citation needed. Not an assertion, a citation: who said exactly what and when, and show me a link.
Why do you people keep spewing that nonsense?
I'm not sure what "nonsense" you're referring to. I asked for a citation, telling me who said what, and asking for a link. Asking for a citation is "nonsense"?
They admitted to it in an interview. They admitted to it.
Yes: that is exactly what I asked for a citation for. Who "admitted it"? What interview? When? Where was it published?
Show me a link.
They clearly make their case here. The first thing stated was "He was a registered democrat in 2006" then says, that he haddn't voted since then,
Whoa, whoa, stop with the lying. The article says they don't know whether he voted since then. It doesn't say he "haddn't"[sic] voted since then. The article was using various weasel words to soften the blow of revealing that Omar was a registered Democrat, full stop.
Because the Democrats are good and truth is good. So if a claim about a Democrat is bad, even if it's not a falsehood there must be a little bit mixed in there somewhere. I think the Snopes thought process goes something like that, for this extremely low quality spin piece.
That link, is a complaint from Proper Media to the courts, saying that:
- at first, Snopes.com was owned by David and Barbara Mikkelson
- the two divorced, and Barbara held on to her 50% of the company
- then she effectively sold her 50% to Proper Media, a company
- but technically she couldn't do that, because Snopes.com had to be owned only by people, not by companies
- so, she sold it to 5 people who owned/ran/were Proper Media company. These 5 people pinky-promised that it would be just like Proper Media itself held the shares.
- so then, it was 50% David Mikkelson, 50% Proper Media
- but then one of the Proper Media people by the name of Green conspired with / got seduced by David Mikkelson, and went over to the dark side! (cue dramatic music)
- now, with David's 50% plus a little bit more from Green who quit Proper Media and is now in David's employ, David controls more than 50%!
- that's not fair!! Green *promised* that he was holding the shares for Proper Media!
Personally, I'm not sure that Proper Media has a case. If there was a legal requirement that shares couldn't be sold to a company, only people, then there was a reason for this, exactly so that individuals could make decisions and not have to act like a coordinated legal entity. If Proper Media says that Green "should have" done such and such ... well, that's going to be hard to argue. So, legally, I think David Mikkelson has better standing.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Yes, the world divides nicely into two, the good, the bad, the left, the right, the democrats, the republicans, and so on.
And no, there's no hidden meaning in that sentence (cause the world doesn't actually divide that way).
Pretty sure being a Registered Democrat makes a person a Democrat. In fact, pretty sure that it is the only thing that makes a person a Democrat.
I'm a registered Democrat, but that's because my state automatically registers you for a party when you vote in the primaries. Since I voted in the Democratic primaries this last time around I'm now registered as a Dem, but I've been registered as a Republican before when I've voted in the Republican primaries. Point being, I think Snopes was right about the fact that being registered to a particular party doesn't mean you are really an adherent to that party.
Swinging a little bit, but a couple more upvotes and I might get the coveted "(Score:5, Troll)", in this case, for triggering some snowflakes by giving the plain truth: the man was a registered Democrat, and Snopes chose to spin and obfuscate that simple fact. What made him a registered Democrat wasn't the state of his mind at the exact instant he committed the murders, nor was it whether he voted for any Republicans in elections since 2006. It was the fact that he (you know) "registered" as a (you know) "Democrat".
When Omar's father showed up on national television standing directly behind Hillary Clinton at a campaign rally, a bunch more Democrats got triggered. (For the slow of wit, I'm NOT saying that the Democratic party consists of bad people or terrorists, but I am alleging that many of them don't trust people to handle plain facts without spin.)
Pretty sure being a Registered Democrat makes a person a Democrat.
So Trump is a democrat? Yay, we won!
Their BS response to Cruz getting his PPO canceled (along with every other private insurance customer in the state of Texas).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
They were based near me and I recall the divorce of the owner, Dennis Hayes, led to the breakup of the company.
I am Homer of Borg, resistance is - Ooo Donuts!
From reading the complaint, since the shares could not be sold to a corp, they were given to idnividuals at the LLC under the agreement they would be holding it for the LLC (whether that is really clean and ethical is another question). But one of them "green" was convinced by the 50% owner to side with him, what proper LLC in their complaint see as conspiracy. If it is true and legal, then he HAS more than 50% under control and therefore proper media llc cannot force anymore those holding more than 50% to do anything whatsoever. Now I am neither a lawyer nor i play one on TV so I have no idea who is on the good side/bad side or even if there is one, but it does not seem as easy as a 50/50 share holder dispute.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
And no less than Vint Cerf came to his defense and agreed that he was fundamental in getting it the attention and funding that it deserved.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
The claim that Snopes was supposed to judge was whether the man was a registered Democrat, not if he had voted recently, and not if he committed the crime in the name of the Democratic party.
Well, by the standards you claimed, voter registration in 2006, President Donald J. Trump is also a registered Democrat.
What could possibly go wrong?
They admitted he was a registered Democrat, then lied and said "His U.S. political affiliation (if any) at the time of the shooting is unknown."
This is called BIAS.
They told the exact truth, led with it in fact, and then pointed out that it was 10 years out of date and could easily have changed. This is called responsible reporting.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
W. T. F. am I supposed to believe!?!? AHGHGHGGGHHH!
I comment occasionally so that I can mod others -1 overrated or -1 offtopic.
any back doors with doing SQL injection on http://message.snopes.com/?
You don't use Snopes to fact check the news-- there are sites like factcheck and politifact for that. You use Snopes for debunking those god-damned "memes" that fly around like mosquitoes, like (the front page on Snopes today) the photo of a whale in a Venice canal, or don't buy Kelloggs Bran flakes because they contain dried ground-up cow dung, or that Donald Trump married Madonna in a secret ceremony in Utah.
This. Snopes is invaluable for a quick "That is not true" link for that kind of stuff.
For political stuff... it's a maybe. If they debunk some slanderous rumor about a conservative or Republican, that's pretty definitive. Slanderous rumors about liberals or Democrats... maybe still useful; read the article carefully and check their sources. I've found that though they have a bias, they aren't liars. (At least, I haven't caught them in a lie.)
Example I recall from way back when -- there was some utterly idiotic rumor that Ashcroft was terrified of calico cats because he thought they were minions of the Devil or some such. At first, Snopes marked that one "unconfirmed", though they did report that Ashcroft laughed out loud when asked about it. A week or so later, it had been improved to "False".
I very strongly suspect a rumor of similar stupidity about a Democrat would have been stamped "False" from the very beginning.
I just use Adblock and no one gets the ad revenue.
This Slashdot discussion now seems to be plumbing the depths of the Devil's rectum to argue Clinton versus Trump.
WTF? What is wrong with you people?
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Certainly some correlation between voter registration and party membership exists
This is the sort of information on which political parties must have done a lot of research. If they had a ballpark number for the 10 years out continued party membership of people who register Democrat at age 19, then they could give a guess at odds on whether he was still a Democrat, and instantly the article appears less biased. With one piece of data, "unknown" in the summary sounds too much like "nothing is known" instead of "it's old data." And, a big paragraph of explanation with no new data comes across as someone trying to justify a bias. I'm not saying that they were trying to justify a bias, just that this writing gives that impression.
Good. Now quit bitching.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I always go to Robtex.com to check on a site (maintain my hosts file) at this time there is nothing about snopes.com, other sites register just fine.
Don't register to this site, it's a social site.
Bullshit.
They hated it long before Trump ran for office.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The thing is, you sign up as a Republican, and on the way to work, the company who employs you suddenly turns into Trump University, and then one day, like Morning Joe, you announce to the public: "you know what, I'm just not into working for Trump University even though I'm going to continue to be a Conservative".
Now, it is true that a blind partisan Democrat can be assumed to still be a Democrat ten years later (even if they did nominate loathsome Hilary), but do we really know the guy ticked off "blind" and "partisan" and "until death do us part" on his original Democrat Vow of Perpetual Allegiance?
I'm sure there are many Obama Democrats who signed up because of Obama, and then checked out of politics during the last election cycle when the Dems nominated a previously-owned, pant-suited, Wall St toady (if they hadn't already checked out halfway through Obama's first term, when he proved to be a colossal disappointment in standing up to the financial sector).
Furthermore, we have strong evidence of the great Democrat check-out in the form of Trump's ghastly victory. We're not even sure he could have won this election running against a ham sandwich, although he did win this election running against "crooked" Hillary. Even though Trump personally thinks Hillary is infinitely worse than a ham sandwich, he still finds time to brag about his victory as a meaningful achievement.
Hillary: high bar or low bar? Pick one.
For myself, the most effective thing I could do politically would be to register with my regional party on the right (I'm not American) so I could help nip against the darling single-issue candidates of the Christian Right in the bud at the nomination stage. This affiliation wouldn't be too hard for me to pull off, because I actually believe in the good half of Libertarianism—compassionate Libertarian wouldn't even be that far from the truth (though my opportunities to fully align myself are thin on the ground).
Then I would be, by American standards, a registered Republican. I'd be happy enough and it would all go swimmingly until Scaramucci shows up, and only then, I would totally blow my cover.
Anthony Scaramucci in 2010: Wall Street feels like a 'pinata'
There are hapless Greenpeacers on the left who say equally ridiculous things (splitting desk with head ridiculous), but they're into Volvos and macrame and other mostly harmless things, whereas Scaramucci is a spoiled child of privilege, and I just can't stand fucktards who defend their ridiculous views by pointing at their bank accounts—in a disgusting show-boat of glitzy ad hominem argument (the good half of Libertarianism believes that all men are created equal, the bad half of Libertarianism believes that all dollars are created equal; a die-hard Conservative is someone who conveniently neglects the difference when ideology hits the ballot box).
People are complex.
America's hidden philosophy — 18 July 2017
I didn't like this article much, but it did make one or two good points. Rational choice theory has long aligned itself with reductive analysis.
My girlfriend asked me about this earlier. I read an article and a PDF of the complaint (in court, against Mikkelson) and the best summary I could come up with was this:
1] He owned the company (Company A, which owns Snopes) 50/50 with his wife
2] They divorced badly, she sold her shares to Company B
3] Company A was founded such that a COMPANY cannot hold shares in it for smallprint legal reasons. So the 5 owners of company each INDIVIDUALLY got some shares of Company A
4] Company B has been doing a lot of the running of the Snopes.com website and controlled some aspects of it (this is unclear)
5] He (Mikkelson) has recently been courting one of the 5 owners of Company B to come over to his "side" so that he controls more than 50 per cent of Company (controls, not owns) and can do what he wants
6] The other four owners of Company B are angry, as the 5th guy appears to have defected. They claim variously that Mikkelson has used company funds to pay for personal stuff, that the 5th guy was legally bound, via an agreement, not to act against the interests of the other 4 guys, and that Mikkelson has done something wrong in enticing him to move to the "other side".
Mikkelson is now appealing on GoFundMe for money... so he can fight for ownership of the company and defend himself from the lawsuit brought by Company B.
And people are throwing money at him, a quarter of a million dollars in just 9 hours.
I don't know who is right, who is wrong, and what claims from the PDF are factual or not, but the general feel of the GoFundMe page is slimy. He is not raising funds to pay off some debt that Snopes owes (like Wikipedia), he is instead RAISING MONEY SO HE CAN FIGHT FOR OWNERSHIP OF THE BUSINESS THAT PAYS HIS SALARY. And if wins, the rest of the money is pure profit, which he could then pay himself with.
PDF of complaint:
http://www.poynter.org/wp-cont...
I would check The Onion for the truth.
and my grandmother was a life long registered republican who never voted for one in her life.
so what?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Maybe it's just that one side of the political spectrum decided that they couldn't be proper fascists if there were facts, and have been fighting against the very concept of objective truth ever since?
You know, things like
I've associated "fake news" with the D side of the aisle for the most part this past election cycle -- you know, like the whole Russia conspiracy theory? A conspiracy theory very much like birtherism with the Obama presidency.
"wars make peace"
Well, some do. At least, fighting a defensive war can achieve peace if you win.
and "cutting taxes increases revenue collected"
This was the whole reason I replied. You aren't familiar with the Laffer Curve? You think that if government raises taxes, then no other variables in the system change, and money just magically shows up at the IRS?
and "giving people health insurance makes them sicker"
That's a pretty skewed misrepresentation. How about enacting a sick and unworkable health insurance law decreases the quality of American healthcare?
and "letting everyone eligible vote corrupts democracy"
Eligible to vote? You mean people who can show ID? Not sure where you're going with this. Maybe you're one of those people who think black people are too stupid, incompetent, or destitute to carry a voter ID? I'm told there are actually "liberals" today who believe that repugnant nonsense. Certainly not liberals in the classic sense, more like cynical, hyper political hacks who are afraid that illegal aliens who vote Democrat might actually get charged with felonies(?).
and "scientists are lying, the world isn't getting warmer"?
Sorry, not that simple, and unfortunately, the nuances seem over your head, my fine AC.
False "Anti-Republican" stories:
http://www.snopes.com/politics...
http://www.snopes.com/islamber...
True "Anti-Democrat" story:
http://www.snopes.com/politics...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
*you're *faggot
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
... folks who find it a beautiful think ...
You need to think about think *thing.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Might want to read this too, as it has a lot more background on the case and lawsuit.
No.
A person can be registered as a Democrat and never vote.
That makes their party of choice, "which ever party wins."
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
You need to find an alternate source. Never get your information from one source. They are left leaning, just as some sites are right leaning.
The logical fallacy that is all the rage these days is:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
So shit sources like Mercola, Naturalnews, foodbabe, nutritionfacts.org, Dr. Oz, greenpeace, and the whole organic movement, are making a shit ton of money by being in the business of peddling unadulterated bullshit.
Yes, a small bunch of liberals. So what? Does a handful of nutballs on the left help you sleep better in the presence of pervasive, mainstream reality-denial on the right?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Another one. Islam had slavery just like all the other Abrahamic religions but they're quoting apologists denying it instead of actually I don't know looking up the sources and history books? www.snopes.com/indiana-muslims-muhammads-deeds/
Here's an example: http://www.snopes.com/orlando-shooter-was-democrat/
Yeah, he was a Democrat. But you can't say he was a Democrat, you have to also say that a person's political affiliation could have changed, and we don't know what was in his heart, and-and... OBVIOUSLY THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE GOOD GUYS, SO HE WASN'T A TRUE DEMOCRAT, OKAY???
Ok, here is the content at the top of the link you gave...
In 2006 Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen registered to vote as a Democrat, but his recent political leanings are unknown.
And if you scroll down further, it has "claim" and the rating is mixture (not either true or false). So what are you trying to show here???
If you pro-actively tell me someone is a Democrat I'm assuming that they actively identify as a member of the Democratic party.
If your only evidence is a 10 year old voter registration I'd assume you're full of it.
I stole this Sig
I heard the Onion closed up shop. They couldn't compete with Trump
So.. you're saying that no Democrats crossed over to Republican primaries to try to spoil the Republican field and no Republicans did the same on the Democrat side last year?
Do you never wonder how we keep getting crappy candidates?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
what a joke, snopes
That's what you get for going with a Turkish company and not buying American. Turkey's known for human rights violations, you think they're going to give a fuck about anything else while they can get money from you?
Snopes better fact-check its fucking self.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Fundamentally, what it comes down to is that these people have a vested interest in hiding from the truth and since Snopes is a site that is interested in unbiased, actual truth they will do anything to smear that site. End of story.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. . . . . . . .
The data was ten years out of date.
Ten years ago we thought the idea of a global surveillance network was conspiracy theorist territory - then Snowden happened. Things change a lot in ten years.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Someone posted a linkbelow with both sides of the story. If I understood correctly, his ex-wife sold her 50% of the company to that very "outside vendor" so they are really co-owners now. He is being accused of gross mismanagement, possibly because he felt it was still his company and tried to get the money out. (That's just my assumption based on their story which I may have misunderstood, by all means read the linked article)
Not taking sides here, just pointing out that other opinions exist.
Mike "The Health Ranger" Adams, aka Cunt Weasel.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Post links on every page to a new domain, clearly explaining what the hoster is doing to you and place all new content on the new site in the meantime.
And here's the link to an archived site of what Vint Cerf actually said/wrote
I did not know that. Thanks for the info. I hope he gets laid and comes to reason.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I'm surprised your keyboard still works with all that drool smothering it.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
If true, a much better explanation would be that the Republican party is made up of a bunch of liars and thieves who worship and elect to office lying scumbag thieves. Your assertion that both parties must regularly lie is the projection you are trying and haven't been able to successfully locate. Good job! You finally found it!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
We know it's you Donnie ... doesn't your Twitter account need you to run your tiny fingers across your tiny phone or something?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
But if your "wife" left for work in 2006, it would be stupid to assume she is still at work ... but keep telling yourself "she" is .... I'm sure "she" will come home from "work" soon. Hang in there buddy!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
For the slow of wit? So you openly admit that your posts are aimed at yourself? Nice.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I just read a magnesium article on NaturalNews that mentions Magnesium Aspartate as one of the worst sources because: "Glutamic acid and aspartic acid are components of the dangerous artificial sweetener aspartame"
It's like saying: "Dihydrogen monoxide is a dangerous component of Hydrogen peroxide!"
Idiots.
This. Snopes is invaluable for a quick "That is not true" link for that kind of stuff. For political stuff... it's a maybe. If they debunk some slanderous rumor about a conservative or Republican, that's pretty definitive. Slanderous rumors about liberals or Democrats... maybe still useful; read the article carefully and check their sources. I've found that though they have a bias, they aren't liars. (At least, I haven't caught them in a lie.)
That's the highest on my list of criteria. I'm more interested that the facts are correct (and getting links to sources). I can form my own opinions once I have facts, but I do want the facts to be accurate.
Example I recall from way back when -- there was some utterly idiotic rumor that Ashcroft was terrified of calico cats because he thought they were minions of the Devil or some such. At first, Snopes marked that one "unconfirmed", though they did report that Ashcroft laughed out loud when asked about it.
That's praise in my opinion. If they did not have a definitive source saying that Ashcroft was not afraid of calico cats, nor one showing that the rumor was made up, "unconfirmed" is accurate. Reporting that Ashcroft laughed at the rumor allows me to form my own opinion (that the rumor is absurd and I personally rate it "pants on fire")-- but if they simply stick to the facts, good for them.
A week or so later, it had been improved to "False".
Corrected incomplete information with more detailed information: excellent.
I very strongly suspect a rumor of similar stupidity about a Democrat would have been stamped "False" from the very beginning.
That seems like speculation. May be true, but it's hard to fault them for something that they didn't do that you speculate that they might have done.
In general I try to not get my news or even my news analysis from comedians, left nor right.
However, reading the Daily Mail article, the "Louder with Crowder" article, and the Snopes article, the one that has facts in it is: the Snopes article.
Crowder isn't quite saying that the Snopes article is inaccurate, he is saying he doesn't like the spin (not quite the same thing as saying it's inaccurate) and complaining that in rating the article "mostly false" people won't read the whole article: his exact quote (not what Snopes actually says, but a parody of what he says Snopes says) is "but screw it, you’re not going to read our explanation below". But the "explanation below" is all I care about. I don't care about other people not reading the whole article. I care about whether the facts are accurate.
So, if what you're saying is "I don't like the spin Snopes puts on the fraction of their articles that deal with politics, but they do get the actual facts right": well, ok, I can deal with that.
No, it's obvious bias. All available information point to him being a Democrat, there's not a single piece that says otherwise. Thus, it's dishonest to say "mixed".
The third line of their article told me that he had registered as a Democrat ten years ago. The very third line.
They gave me the facts. That's what I care about.
I think they could have gone a long way towards seeming unbiased by putting a little research into their words:
I don't care whether they "seem" unbiased. I care whether their facts are correct. They told me that the fact behind the snark was that he had registered to vote as a Democrat ten years ago. That's the factual basis for the internet rumor, and that's what I call "informative."
The rest of your post seems to say "if they had added some information that they didn't have, it would have been a better article," On that point, I'm "yeah, whatever." I don't even think it would have been a better article; I think it would have turned a straightforward article into a confused article that now uses dubious information from unreliable (political) sources to make some sort of point of unknown use. I just want the facts.
... With one piece of data, "unknown" in the summary sounds too much like "nothing is known" instead of "it's old data."
They told me that it's old data. That is useful information. And since there only is "one piece of data," telling me what that one piece of data is, is also useful.
And, a big paragraph of explanation with no new data comes across as someone trying to justify a bias. I'm not saying that they were trying to justify a bias, just that this writing gives that impression.
We care about different things. What I care about is are the facts correct, or not?
I am a Democrat, but am usually registered as No Party Preference, because the California Democratic Party does not represent Democratic principles. But I am always a Democrat.
Wait til they find out that you can't live without glutamic acid and aspartic acid, which are in basically everything. Basically the only questionable ingredient in aspartame is phenylalanine, which *may* inhibit weight loss, but because phenylalanine is in oh so many things and is an essential amino acid (meaning your body needs it but can't make its own,) that will need to be looked into further.
Mercola also attacks aspartame because it will harm people with phenylketonuria, which is an extremely rare condition, and if you have that, aspartame is the least of your problems as the amount of it in aspartame sweetened foods is much lower than i.e. dairy products, meat, soy, etc. Because aspartame is 100 times sweeter than sugar, they use relatively little amounts of it. For example, there's 10 times as much phenylalanine in milk as there is in diet soda.
There's also 8 times as much aspartic acid and 7 times as much methanol in juice than there is in diet soda. Yet we're supposed to be afraid of it anyways.
The third line of their article told me that he had registered as a Democrat ten years ago. The very third line. They gave me the facts. That's what I care about.
They buried the facts deep into the article, downplaying them in the headline. And the headline is the only piece most people see.
Buried the fact in the third line of the article.
Facts are what I want. If you can't even bother to read to the third line of an article when looking something up (because three lines is "buried deep" in the article), it doesn't matter what the article said, you're not going to learn anything.
So, when I said they needed more facts that were relevant to the sentences they wrote, your response is:
On that point, I'm "yeah, whatever."
and then you write
We care about different things. What I care about is are the facts correct, or not?
So, you're indifferent to whether all the relevant data is present, but you really care about facts that are correct.
No. In this particular case, you told me that if they added additional information which they did not have, their article would have been better. I don't expect them to report information that they don't have. I don't even have any reason to believe that information is available at all-- you told me that you speculate that this is a subject "on which political parties must have done a lot of research", but you don't cite any source suggesting that "the political parties" have released this analysis... and even if you had, I don't trust political parties as a source of unbiased information.
Bottom line, Snopes gave me the relevant fact: they told me upon what information the original claim was based. Everything else is commentary, in which I am uninterested.
I register as an unaffiliated voter, but that makes it impossible to then work to try to get acceptable candidates nominated in the primaries of EITHER of the two major parties. A third party vote virtually ensures that my vote does not count in the Electoral College (which, as we all know, is where the real presidential election is made). So as an unaffiliated voter, I can register with the party I most disagree with in order to try and get a better (worst of two evils) candidate of only one side of any election. This is the result of a "winner-take-all" counting of the electoral vote, which is how most of the states have chosen to count their EC results. From my viewpoint, neither party represents me and my vote in the primaries, where my so-called choices are picked in the presidential elections, even if I try to pick the worst of evils from the only two choices that have a chance at winning in the actual Electoral College count. Either way, my vote does not count for my true political choice. So much for the fallacy of American Exceptionalism.
PlaynBass
Modded +1 in order to preserve my own comments in this discussion.
PlaynBass
Modded -1 Flamebait in order to preserve my own comments in this thread...
PlaynBass
It sure would be nice to have access to the 'other' side of this story.
I value a reputable fact-checking resource, yet it seems uncharacteristic (of snopes.com) that only very general info regarding the issue is offered.
For example:
- If a contract term expiry is nearing, why were steps not taken in a timely manner?
- What is the 'vendor' side of the issue?
- Do you own the SNOPES.COM domain?
- What is preventing you from pointing your DNS record to another host, and circumventing that vendor's theft?
I would gladly donate if I knew more about the issue.
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.