Why isn't there a Snopes alternative to rebut their liberal bias?

Why isn't there a Snopes alternative to rebut their liberal bias?

Attached: Screen-Shot-2017-07-10-at-10.37.43-AM-768x335.png (768x335, 96K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q
doctorswithoutborders.org/what-we-do/news-stories/research/report-forced-flee-central-americas-northern-triangle
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

FUCK ISRAELUMPF

Soros didn't fund an alternative. What would be the point in that?

Attached: Snopes Soros.jpg (600x600, 91K)

You are on it faggot

There is it's called your five senses and your brain.

There is it’s called Jow Forums

>rightwing facts
it would be overrun by cranks and conspiratards

The left is the conspiracy wing now bruv

Snopes is good cause when I wander onto an article there I instantly know that it's a lie so whatever they say is the opposite of the truth.

But normies don't come here.

Post more Snopes memes.

Attached: Hillary and Hammer.jpg (622x768, 76K)

But that's correct... Personally doing it is a different thing than telling someone to.

Pretty soon there will not be a Snopes. The owners have a shit ton of legal issues and the company is insolvant.

riiiight because if Trump committed tax fraud the truthfulness of saying "Trump committed tax fraud" would be a "mixture", because technically his lawyers did it after he told them to....

You're not very well versed on law, are you? You're comparing tax laws to laws regarding evidence handling.

>alternative
uh, Jow Forums, hello?

Man. You guys are like advanced stupid.

>The American South enslaved black people
>FALSE, blacks aren't people.

there's no need. truth is objective and that's what snopes is doing/

Have sex with a gay nigger

Good question.
Maybe because the right is not supported by the billions of shady money and thus can't lose it as much as the left can.
Maybe because they would get censored and removed from the internet as well?
Or called a Nazi website and thus removed?

How about, when Trump said that 30% of women are being raped in the caravans and they came out with "false" because it was only 31%?
Objectively true but then the leftists use this as an argument
>>Trump said 6000 lies
How is that objective, and why is it a propaganda?

Not like that. It's about a normie tier website with an easy response of "True", "False".
Here you are going to get opinions from different angles and you are ultimately responsible for making that decision. On the normie websites you get a decision straight away.

>>truth is subjective and that's what SNOPES is doing
Fixed it for ya.

That's not why it was deemed false, it was because that figure was reporting DWB stats involving their care facility reporting. I'm sure you're smart enough to figure out why that stat can't be applied to the whole.

What's odd to me is when Jon Stewart comes out with a video of 100 lies told by Fox News (or whatever the video was) ... and over 90% were guests. This is the kind of bullshit they do, though.

Also it wasn't 1/3 being raped. It was 1/3 being sexually assaulted. Ass grab is sexual assault, forced sex is rape. I assume you can grasp that as well.

Oh so ignoring the Amnesty International report that estimates that 60% of the women face rape and sexual assault in the caravans is objective, right?
I'm looking for the exact story now, to debunk what you said, as I was speaking from memory.

Go for it. What will probably end up happening is it's some link talking about "at risk of" or something. Doesn't change the fact the statement was false because he conflated SA with rape.

Oh look, pic related, they changed their ruling from false to part true. How interesting.
Now tell me more about their objectivity

Attached: Screenshot_20190614-141343_Chrome.jpg (1060x1407, 525K)

Again. Read this:
They changed the ruling because the previous one was completely ridiculous.
That's the politifact, and it regards what Trump said, not some other shit that you are thinking about.
This is the original thing that I was talking about.
Now I'm looking through my shit to show you that it was, indeed changed.

>willingness to admit incorrect action and change views is bad
What??

imagine that, a retard can't into the explanation why he's retarded

Also share what you are talking about so I can see how objective the source is on my own.
Again I trust Amnesty International about as much as I trust other propaganda outlets but completely missing their report sounds like the fact manipulation to me.

I still fail to see why a redaction is a bad thing. Isn't that credence to a goal of objectivity?

You brought up AI. I mentioned the DWB citation which you yourself just posted a screengrab of a link to. Are you having a stroke or something?

Again. When the statement came it was false for a long time. They just received backlash because 31% is so close to 33% that it was completely ridiculous.
Having to admit that it's indeed a true statement, while at the same failing to disclose the Amnesty general report is still a lie. They changed it to the next best thing for their propaganda, when in reality it's obvious that Trump was telling the truth.
Or do you think that 1.6% different in a result means that he was only partially right?

Every time someone brings up Snopes in a serious manner, remind them that the site was originally created to autistically catagorize bigfoot and Elvis sightings, and should be taken as seriously as Flat Earth.

Dude. Take a deep breath and consolidate your point. Trump didn't tell the truth with his claim. The sourced article walks you through as to why.

This is what you said:
>>That's not why it was deemed false, it was because that figure was reporting DWB stats involving their care facility reporting. I'm sure you're smart enough to figure out why that stat can't be applied to the whole
My point is that this figure that Trump cited differed by 1.6%
Also Trump said: sexually assaulted.
What part of what Trump said isn't true?
The fact that the study had less than 500 participants?
Tell me how much you know about the social studies and when a group is statistically considered valid as a representation of the population?
And how come this study is called a study if it isn't considered statistically valid?

kekd

Attached: snopes-fact-check.jpg (695x500, 74K)

The redaction is still bullshit.
Just read it all and you will see why.
They received a huge backlash so they changed it a notch, doesn't make them more objective, it makes them marginally less biased, bit it doesn't change the fact that they are objectively trying to push propaganda.
They should rule it as true because the difference of 1.6% is no difference.

Christ, now I see why you're so stupid. They didn't deem him false for the % difference. They deemed him false because he's citing shit wrong. If I as a doctor report 30% of the cases I saw that month were rapes, does that mean 30% of people are raped? No. Holy shit, man.

>huge backlash
I keep seeing this claim. But the only ones mad are you die-hards.

These people have no shame

Bigger question why do people leftists mostly unironically take their word at face value?

Because Snopes is the final word on truth on the internet.
What's your problem, goy.

So please explain to me like I'm 5, how come a social study isn't a real study aka not statistically valid?
The fact that a doctor said that it was a snapshot doesn't mean that these snapshots aren't used as a guideline and aren't statistically valid.
The fact that the most of them were men means that the numbers for women are likely larger.
An objective person would see it.
And the difference in reporting that differs by 1.6% is just laughable to deem it not true.
Another thing is that Amnesty International reported that 60% of women are being raped and sexually assaulted on that jurney.
If you want to argue that the president was wrong then include this number as well.
They said that he was wrong because he cited the DWB, how do they know what he used?
That isn't a part of what he said.

That stupid "false" claim made its rounds on the interwebs, I don't doubt that it was the reason behind the change.
There are less ridiculous claims by these sources that still aren't objectively true but aren't as interesting nor do they garner as much responses.

You're just failing to grasp why 30% of this clinic's visits involved x doesn't equate to 30% of people are experiencing x? What? How more basic can I go?

You just keep saying "nu uh it happened." The first time I've ever seen this stupid quote even getting brought up was this thread.

There is hardly ever truth in the media's representations of studies. Those who do the studies do what's called "p-hacking" to get them to say pretty much whatever they want.. and the media runs with it. If you really want to understand what the study finds, you have to interpret the numbers yourself... which means you need the expertise to do the study yourself.

There is. Its called facts

The guy doesn't understand how samples work. Don't bog him down in P-value manipulation.

thanks for redpilling the goyim but i don't think most of them even understood this post

Here's a 12min video that goes into more detail than I would ever care to on Jow Forums.
youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q

Same reason there isn't a television channel: you have to leave your parent's basement to participate in life.

Because this “service” is pushed as an authority by Google, the media, redddit etc.

Those same powers do everything they possibly can to silence and smear those who espouse objective reality.

>Why isn't there a Snopes alternative to rebut their liberal bias?
Why do you need one? Do your own research.

>Veritasium

It’s for linking to people. Liberals send snopes links to one another, tightening their confirmation bias, as well as to gullible, low-information rightists.

Arguing with the left is tiresome but I feel it makes you smarter. 99% of the time they give you a "source" they didn't read it. 100% of the time they give you a scientific study they did not read it. They like being told but aren't equipped to argue the actual content and merit and it shows. It's all pointless though because they never admit they are wrong.

>oh but the right does this too

I can't speak for the entire "right" but I personally will never argue something I don't know anything about or that I definitely know is true with concrete proof but the left will argue any, issue of the week thing the media says to care about. This week it's womans soccer and if they get paid enough and the among of misinformation from liberals on this topic is astounding.

This. The fact they even have those to begin with just means they are lazy and they are easily manipulated.

#
They often read them, they just have shit analisis skills and come to an erroneous conclusion.

And here it is straight from the horse's mouth.
DEB is also wrong on their report?
Or what are we dealing with, here?
What they are claiming is what Trump did.
There are some other numbers there.
And they conclude with a statement that this is a humanitarian crisis.
If the survey wasn't such a big deal and really did not describe the situation why then would they include in the report to claim that the caravans are a huge violent endeavour that looks like a humanitarian crisis?
They use the same number to call for a different outcome, that one is right
doctorswithoutborders.org/what-we-do/news-stories/research/report-forced-flee-central-americas-northern-triangle

Attached: Screenshot_20190614-144301_Chrome.jpg (1011x287, 62K)

>means they are lazy and they are easily manipulated
Or they may actually be mentally retarded

Attached: facts_are_stupid.png (1300x1280, 437K)

HOW ABOUT WE MEME FAKE SNOPES FACT CHECKS

>that image
My sides. I'm actually at a loss how to help you here now. You're somehow able to just ignore the entire critical component of this whole topic and spam questions thinking the topic is something else. It's baffling.

Snopes has a liberal bias but of all the websites that tell you what to think, they sometimes are surprising. A year ago or so ago they had a feature article called “the many lies told about the president” or something like that.

But still they are shitty because politics is an illusion and fact checking an illusion.

Apparently I was wrong and thought that it was a study when it wasn't.
That I will admit to. You have no idea what I know and don't know.
If this was a study with a valid findings it would have to be statistically significant.
The norm in the psychological studies is N=30 for the study to count as describing the actual phenomenon in the population.
Another thing is that I wasn't discussing the validity of the study, I was discussing the fact that Politifact used these numbers to discredit Trump. The points I made about the study were a response to your points.
Admittedly I didn't read the report then and did not know it wasn't a typical study but a group of surveys. The surveys are used for the studies, but the rules are different.

It doesn't matter your N value if you're trying to make cross-inference to a different population. I can get an N value of infinity for a study on a population, it doesn't magically become comparable to a different population set. Why can you not grasp this?

Attached: 16B1AA34-60D8-4191-8ED8-2B4FAF2F698E.png (1125x2436, 351K)

Pic related calls bullshit on the interpretation of Politicfact.
In their report they mention that this particular number did not come from 1 survey. That Carrie's some consequences, cause politifact is anal about it.
Oh so if Trump said that 1 in 3 women WAS assaulted on their journey he would be completely right.
But because he said that they were aka said what the report said verbatim he was wrong.
Instead he should qualify that they were between 2015 through December 2016.
Do you expect him to make a qualification that the report itself doesn't make?
The qualifications being that the survey isn't a study and shouldn't be generalized to mean a population.
If that's your position then I rest my case.
If your position is that instead reading the report, that is quite obvious, he should call DWB to get the exact parameters if what conspired?

Attached: Screenshot_20190614-145931_Chrome.jpg (1058x464, 160K)

Because the money is with the chamber of commerce type Republicans not the activists

I'm amazed you still somehow can't figure out your logic flaw. I really can't explain it any deeper.

The population here is the people that are taking the jurney. The fuck you think that the population isn't to some extent stable in the caravans, or at least as stable as the population of students in college, from year to year?
Why do you make this assumption, is it based solely on what 1 doctor said, his survey represents?
Also it's an irrelevant point, since it isn't a study. It's a report on findings of a series of survey.
The report that claims that the migrants face violence and sexual abuse and assault.
The report that even seeks solutions based on these findings and specific policies.
The only thing that is different is what outcome are these findings used for.

No it isn't. It's those reporting to clinics x,y,z during timeframe X. This is your fundamental logic hole you can't seem to get over.

There is; it's called "evidence".

Again, I get what you are saying. You are claiming that this isn't a study on a population of the caravan, and that these findings need to be not taken out of the context that they are in.
But I cited the report and please show me where they claim that these shouldn't alarm people to the humanitarian crisis and that these findings are not actually representative of the population of the caravans that are ongoing?
Where they say, in their report that these findings don't mean that the entire population in the caravans suffers these consequences and that it needs to be taken with a grain of salt?
Because they don't.
So how a person who doesn't actually know how studies and surveys differ, citing verbatim the conclusions of the study is wrong?
Should they educate themselves, sure. Should they be called a liar? Absolutely no. The report is pretty obvious when it claims all of these ailments and fails to put the qualifiers.
What it means that these surveys, shouldn't make the DWB into asking for a specific policies but should be a basis of a study and then when the population of the caravans is actually described we should do something about it.

The people reporting to clinics are problematic as far as any other population would be, but only because the population is that of reporting to clinics instead of the whole population.
Again, where does this report qualify this?
Another question: the population that reported to the clinics comprises which percent of the entire population?
Another thing is that the men were surveyed. Great. Why then the report mentions women specifically?
No qualifier there either.
Why the report sounds alarming and talks about the humanitarian crisis at the border using their survey as a proof?
That's my problem.
If it comes to the studies I'm happy that they made these qualifications for the Politifact, I just wonder why not in their own study.
Also I wouldn't be so fast in dismissing the help seeking population as a representation of the population. It all depends what percentage of the population seeks help.
Also the part about people seeking help in the clinics means that we can assume that the numbers of the victims are actually higher in reality. We do have the studies on this subject. We can't say how much larger the group suffering violence is, but we can cautiously assume that it is larger. Hell it would be a good study.

Because the only reason they get any traffic online is because of google and the media. The jewish media controls who gets the traffic. There are thousands of well out together sites and apps that nobody knows about because they dont want you to see it.

Must be controlled by jews, must meet the test of ideology, must be well put together. Otherwise youll just be a poorfag programburger.