Snopes is Dying

[taiyuu_otoko]

And they want your money...

http://stockboardasset.com/insights-and-research/snopes-com-implodes-resorts-gofundme/

Snopes.com is a failed liberal blog from 1994. The website claims to be the internet’s oldest and most popular fact-checking site. Last year, Snopes Co-Founder was accused of embezzling company money, and spending it on prostitutes.

Now you can find the blog begging for $500k in funding via GoFundMe. So far, the campaign has raised $18,000 in 3 hours via 710 people.

Another victim of the fake news campaign backfiring on the left…

 

[logicallefty]

haha this cracks me up. I hope this company goes down like the c0ckroach that it is.

 

[SeymourCake]

What boggles me is that within three hours, 310 people chipped in already and they raised $18,269 despite knowing that the owner was exposed for spending the company's money on prostitutes.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

10 people chipped in already and they raised $18,269

check it now...

https://www.gofundme.com/savesnopes

It's up to nearly $400K

 

[Bible_Belt]

I think it's funny how everyone here falls for right-wing propaganda hook line and sinker. You're all easy marks.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Yeah, like in our last discussion when you said roads and bridges are racist, and the one before that when you said that that companies like Exxon and Goldman Sachs are "leftist." Who could argue with facts like that? I'm so dismantled!

 

[samspade]

How was Snopes a liberal website?

 

[Bible_Belt]

How was Snopes a liberal website?

They debunked too many right-wing nut ball conspiracy theories.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

How was Snopes a liberal website?

The general feeling was that it tended to support certain ideas less rigorously than other ideas. Or it attacked certain ideas more vehemently than other ideas.

Whether or not that's true, who knows. But people that support snopes tend to believe the leftist ideas are bastions of truth and justice and right wingers are all crazy mouth-foaming nutjobs.

BUT the following is more or less true:

Snopes was run by a guy and his wife, so any "truth" is really a guy and his wife, and their perception (who they hired for research, etc).

And they got divorced, the guy allegedly funneled a bunch of snopes ad money into a private account that he spent on hookers.

Now, a couple people are suing each other (wife, business, ad company etc) and the site is broke cause the dude (the bastion of truth) secretly spent all the ad money on hookers.

 

[Bible_Belt]

I read all of that sh!t. I think the Russians planted it in the wikileaks material, which will eventually be a finding in the investigation of Trump's ties to Russia.

Funniest thing, when a right-wing nutball storms the place with a gun, the underground child sex slave dungeon didn't really exist.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/...ng-pizza-shooting-fake-news-consequences.html
In Washington Pizzeria Attack, Fake News Brought Real Guns

 

[samspade]

They claim Seth Rich never sent the 33,000 emails to wikileaks, but never prove he didn't. They just touch on related subjects which prove nothing.

Question then, Danger. Isn't it impossible to prove a negative? In this case, all Snopes can say is that there is no evidence he sent the emails - correct? Maybe that's not what they said, I didn't read it.

I used to read Snopes a lot in the early aughts, back when people sent b.s. emails to each other. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong, or maybe I'm not that political, but I thought they presented the facts as best they could regardless of the source. For instance, Snopes verified that George W. Bush's Texas home was uber-friendly to the environment (self-sustaining, solar powered, collecting rain water etc.) while Al Gore's was an energy-guzzling behemoth. Although back then a lot of it was debunking famous urban legends, like Rod Stewart having his stomach pumped or....Richard Gere and you know what. These days there's a lot of fact-checking politicians, which is silly because all politicians lie or exaggerate. In fact that is just about all they do.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

For instance, Snopes verified that George W. Bush's Texas home was uber-friendly to the environment (self-sustaining, solar powered, collecting rain water etc.) while Al Gore's was an energy-guzzling behemoth.

Snopes (or the dude or two who ran it) was like any other site, legit when it started. But once the money comes in, one tends to do what the money wants you do to.

Liberal or conservative, one dude running a website that makes ton of $$ ain't gonna be objective.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

He couldn't get laid bc he was being too liberal, so he hired up prostitutes instead hahaha

 

[Julian]

Anyone with half a brain whos not completely buttfukked by the matrix can realize snopes was full of chit.

 

[devilkingx2]

snopes did good work on a lot of subjects, which is why I always trusted them

http://www.snopes.com/dangerous-cosmic-gamma-rays/

it's just that politics makes everyone biased nowadays, can't trust anyone to give you the truth except for wikileaks, phillip defranco, r/the_donald and r/kotakuinaction, 4chan and encyclopedia dramatica, these days :/ (shoutouts to breitbart, milo and mister metokur)