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

      If you have other suggestions in open to getting them, but I’m not sure how being a Facebook checker is a negative thing. Facebook needs LOTS of checking. Not a huge fan of Google Analytics, but I can hide myself from that stuff anyway, so also not a big deal really.

      Basically they’re better than nothing.

        • 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.

            • 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.

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

      Yes please asses the credibility of their articles based on their associations with shady companies instead of the contents plausibility.