Facebook acts as a conservative hideout and has been one since ages. Why do you think Facebook is an objective outlet that will use Snopes legitimately?
I don’t think Facebook is anything but an awful cesspool. But stating Snopes is just as bad without evidence, doesn’t help the conversation.
As I stated if you have other suggestions I’m open to getting them. Just stating “Nope, bad!” Without giving evidence, outside of affiliation, doesn’t help the conversation, nor does it direct folks to trustworthy sources.
Snopes got employed for Facebook fact checking. You need more evidence than that for its association with a platform like that, responsible for terrorism and horrible regimes worldwide?
Yes I do need more evidence then that. Snopes is known as a trustworthy source. So it makes sense for Facebook to hire them. Did Snopes compromise their integrity it did they try to do the job the best they can?
What you’re suggesting is basically on the level of an attorney decides to defend someone in a murder, even if that person didn’t commit it, that the attorney should also be charged on the murder if found guilty. That’s not how it works.
You can attempt to do good, even while working with someone awful. Guilt by association is draconian.
Guilt by association is applicable in digital space, because you are not obliged to do it by anyone.
You employed reductio ad absurdum in conflating this with “reeee defendant attorney of murderer is murderer”. Pretty bad argument I would say. If you are trying to tell me associating with someone voluntarily is not a problem, then you need to change some of what you learnt.
Awesome, so instead of actually giving evidence and attempting to push the conversation forward by offering better solutions, instead you just insult people got it.
Facebook acts as a conservative hideout and has been one since ages. Why do you think Facebook is an objective outlet that will use Snopes legitimately?
I don’t think Facebook is anything but an awful cesspool. But stating Snopes is just as bad without evidence, doesn’t help the conversation.
As I stated if you have other suggestions I’m open to getting them. Just stating “Nope, bad!” Without giving evidence, outside of affiliation, doesn’t help the conversation, nor does it direct folks to trustworthy sources.
Snopes got employed for Facebook fact checking. You need more evidence than that for its association with a platform like that, responsible for terrorism and horrible regimes worldwide?
Yes I do need more evidence then that. Snopes is known as a trustworthy source. So it makes sense for Facebook to hire them. Did Snopes compromise their integrity it did they try to do the job the best they can?
What you’re suggesting is basically on the level of an attorney decides to defend someone in a murder, even if that person didn’t commit it, that the attorney should also be charged on the murder if found guilty. That’s not how it works.
You can attempt to do good, even while working with someone awful. Guilt by association is draconian.
Guilt by association is applicable in digital space, because you are not obliged to do it by anyone.
You employed reductio ad absurdum in conflating this with “reeee defendant attorney of murderer is murderer”. Pretty bad argument I would say. If you are trying to tell me associating with someone voluntarily is not a problem, then you need to change some of what you learnt.
Awesome, so instead of actually giving evidence and attempting to push the conversation forward by offering better solutions, instead you just insult people got it.
Not feeding you anymore, since you know what you are doing. Have a good life.