| Fact check websites 04:42 - Jul 14 with 822 views | Dr_Parnassus |
I saw it mentioned not a million miles from here that Snopes was credible because despite its clear left wing bias it ranking as “mostly credible”.
Let me explain why that is a falsehood to DJack.
Depending on what side of the divide the fact check website resides (usually on the left), it frames its conclusions in such a way where two exact same stories can be concluded in whatever way they choose appropriate.
Example regarding Biden’s Laptop.
They lay it out with the focus being on the proven ownership of the laptop.
- “We rate this as FALSE as it is unproven whether it belongs to the Presidents son”.
Social media sites can then bury the story because their fact check partner have said it’s false.
That same story, but change the son and let’s replace Hunter with Don Jnr.
They lay it out with the focus being on the accusation and the proof.
- “We rate this as PARTLY TRUE as it is documented fact that Don Jnr has been accused of horrendous behaviour documented on his laptop, however further investigation into the ownership is needed”.
Same story, different outcome, yet both can technically be described as “credible”. |  |
| |  |
| Fact check websites on 22:10 - Jul 14 with 671 views | Jack123 |
Let's face it, only the dim, would ever have any faith in these 'fact checker websites'.
I pointed it out when they first reared their ugly head, These organisations can manipulate any facts they want, and many gullible will swallow it. |  |
| |
| Fact check websites on 23:35 - Jul 14 with 637 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Fact check websites on 22:10 - Jul 14 by Jack123 |
Let's face it, only the dim, would ever have any faith in these 'fact checker websites'.
I pointed it out when they first reared their ugly head, These organisations can manipulate any facts they want, and many gullible will swallow it. |
Absolutely. They can manipulate their answer anyway they like depending on the wording of the question they initially lay out.
As the article says, they aren’t impartial referees - they are essentially a partisan fan put in charge of refereeing, who will very clearly sway to the side he is rooting for.
The language on these sites is clear. If a leftist is “bang to rights” it may be forced to say “TRUE” but it will usually add a caveat or twist it in such a way where they can say “PARTLY TRUE” in order to muddy the water, as most will go to the outcome as opposed to reading the findings.
But as I said, they are essentially another branch of the social media companies. They are used to bury information they don’t want public which is what they did with the Biden laptop scandal. But they won’t do it the opposite way for example, they were more than happy to have any negative unverified Trump stories rattling about.
They can then pretend the “fact checkers” are independent and are simply complying with their findings. Where as the truth is more that the social media companies are giving the “fact checkers” very clear instructions in which way they want their findings framed.
It’s a big criminal con to spread censorship and sway thought. It’s funny after months of criticism, they reviewed their police AFTER the election.
Crooks.
 | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
