[jbdigriz]

The entire basis of this paper is politically motivated and aimed at deplatforming any sites which don't abide by radical leftist progressive propaganda. Any discussion which considers Snopes a valid "fact checking" enterprise immediately loses all credibility.

Very unfortunate as the premise that Google promotes or blocks content to suit their agenda is undoubtedly accurate

[marketneutral]

Your statement is false and unsourced. The basis of the paper, as stated in the abstract is to "examine the role of search engines and their optimization processes in directing traffic towards junk news & disinformation about COVID-19" - it has nothing to do with "radical leftist propaganda".

Also, besides Snopes, the authors list the following sources: AFP Factuel, BBC Reality Check, Correctiv, Les Décodeurs, dpa Faktencheck, FactCheck, Media Bias/Fact Check, Newsguard, Pagella Politica, PolitiFact, Tagesschau Faktenfinder.

It is easy, especially for the HN community, to see that overly-sensationalist fake news stories could trip an algo whose purpose is to surface the "most popular" stories.

This is fantastic work by The Computational Propaganda Project.

[jbdigriz]

The very first line of the introduction has most blatant heavy handed QUALITATIVE assessment of ZeroHedge as an example of a conspiratorial site which is as antithetical to true science as you can get. In fact, the term conspiracy theory was itself developed by the CIA to discredit any leaks about various clandestine activities they intended to keep this way. This is a bad faith argument and sets the stage for everything to come, culminating in the true intention which is to continue the marxist left on free thought and speech.

Every single one of those "fact checker" sites is a known left leaning and supported entity with plenty of examples of mistruth.

It's ironic how both the left and right are at least pretending to want to reign in big tech, but for the exact opposite reasons...

[madhadron]

> Any discussion which considers Snopes a valid "fact checking" enterprise immediately loses all credibility.

Citation needed, and alternatives.

Also,

> radical leftist progressive propaganda

Who are all these American Bolsheviks that everyone seems to think have all this power? There isn't really a left, much less a radical left, in the USA at all that I can tell.

[theredlion]

No radical left in the USA? Have you been following the news for the past 2 months?

[jbdigriz]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-trump-impatiently-dump...

This is labelled as "miscaptioned" which is embarrassingly obvious politispeak for a LIE. Not only did Trump NOT dump ALL the food in the koi pond as fake news media breathlessly reported (with intentionally deceptive editing), but he was actually following the exact same action taken by Abe as a dignified courteous guest would do as a sign of respect for a highly regarded leader from a foreign culture.

You want more examples?

[asdf333]

really? my impression is that snopes is pretty good. why do you say it isn't?

[jbdigriz]

Snopes routinely picks up on unsavory truths regarding the left and then proceed on a campaign of disinformation warfare by distorting the truths into their own fabricated strawman that can be "debunked" while simultaneously spending a princely sum on SEO to insure searches for said unsavory truths are redirected to their fever dream. It's a DNC digital mercenary site and routinely muddies the waters at best.

Do a little reading up on the guy who started that site. While I generally prefer to criticize arguments instead of their presenters, the fact that this guy is an actual lying fraud says everything about his credibility - and also the leftist/progressive tribal cult that relish in his church

[theredlion]

I've noticed on a number of occasions what appears to be what I would consider a very staunch difference in Snopes' declaration of a claim vs what they say below in their explanation