• TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 years ago

    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?

    • ozoned@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 years ago

      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.

      • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 years ago

        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?

        • ozoned@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 years ago

          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.

          • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 years ago

            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.

            • ozoned@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 years ago

              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.

                • ozoned@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  Yes, what i’m doing is asking for actually information. If toy want to suggest alternatives, i’ll check them out. Instead you just want everyone to trust you on your word. And looking at your history you just want to live in your bubble and fight anyone that doesn’t agree with you.

                  So give us some alternatives.

                  Or ignore me and prove me right, and i sincerely do wish everyone, including you, a good life. And not in the sarcastic way you dismiss people.

                  • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    3 years ago

                    I wish others good life and hope they gain wisdom, not sarcastically like you generalised. People have this generalisation problem.

                    Instead of these biased fact checkers, why do you not research yourself into any publisher or source organisation? You have the internet and search engines on your fingers, go check yourself and remove the middleman.

                    Why are you advocating everyone instead of being educated and independent, employ a middleman fact checker who nobody is keeping in check? Why are you claiming Snopes, MBFC or these should be an authotiry on validation of news sources?