I often see this talking point come from a certain segment of people with particular persuasions. It is extremely peculiar that you chose to link to a Daily Mail (I cannot articulate how ironic that is) article that uses another talking point/myth that's been appropriately cast aside again and again. Just for an observable example of the nature of the people that hold these persuaisans and view points, you can gather a list of subreddits that have submitted this article on Reddit and compare which subreddits it garnered attention on and which ones, again, appropriately cast it aside: https://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail...
Is there any record of Snopes not living up to their stated goal, or doing anything that should have damaged their reputation as an organization?
I deliberately and ironically linked to the UK Daily Mail - the largest online 'newspaper' on the planet- and their Snopes story as an example of a 'credible' news site (despite all the click bait Taboola style 'stories' on it).
You don't have to look far to find troubling criticism of Snopes and their ad agency owners online
You backed up your point with a website that is staunchly pro pseudo-science and fear mongering, which contains multiple sources from the Daily Mail yet again to make their point.
Of course you won't have to go far to find circular sources in an echo chamber, but finding qualified sources for your point seems to be difficult.
You are clearly debating based on perceptions of my being part of 'a certain segment of people with particular persuasions'. I gave up Facebook but I am very interested in who gets to decide what information I am allowed to see via the internet.
I don't think either the Daily Mail or Snopes are credible information filters. I would hope for something better.
'Pseudo science' is another case in point. who gets to decide what is 'real' science and what is 'pseudo'? It's the same censorship challenge as the 'news' crack down on free speech...
No, your evidence is just form ridiculous sources. The "FoodBabe" article repeats the same nonsense from the DailyMail, and throws in some Monsanto fearmongering.
If you were applying for a security clearance and the government discovered you had massive amounts of debt and lots of questionable history that's ripe for blackmail, you would likely be denied. That's because those things could be used as leverage against you to make you act immorally.
So yes, I'm quite interested in the personal lives of the people running a company about to be ordained as "the objective truth" by Facebook/Google/et al
The thing is, fact checkers like Snopes and Politifact don't just give an opaque true or false proclamation, they explain how they arrived at that conclusion, which I think is the key bit. You're free to check the evidence for yourself and decide if their reasoning holds up. The people behind it aren't asking you to take their word on reputation alone.
Everybody can be leveraged. It's a matter of how vulnerable or weak the one being leveraged is, who's doing the pressuring, and what the latter stand to benefit by doing it.
For that reason, I'm also interested in who's being made the gatekeeper, because I already know who's out there wanting what, and how much capital they have. None of this happens in a vacuum.
I'm personally unsure how their relationship status impacts the credibility of the service, but it bring brought up by you does make me question the validity of your statement.
Really, a down-vote for this? Go back to the 1950's, that's the only place where someone's relationship status belongs in your judgement. If you cannot accept divorced groups, no wonder we suck at gender diversity and LGBTQ rights/representation.
Before someone asks, I'm not divorced or a member of the LGBTQ community, I just believe in the rights of others.
