Page 1 of 1

Rumor has it...

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 3:49 am
by Nightshade
...Snopes co-founder David Mikkelson is a cheat and a liar.
Facebook 'fact checker' who will arbitrate on 'fake news' is accused of defrauding website to pay for prostitutes - and its staff includes an escort-porn star and 'Vice Vixen domme'

"...Snopes.com will be part of a panel used by Facebook to decide whether stories which users complain about as potentially 'fake' should be considered 'disputed'.

But the website's own troubles and the intriguing choice of who carries out its 'fact checks' are revealed by DailyMail.com, as one of its main contributors is disclosed to be a former sex-blogger who called herself 'Vice Vixen'.

Snopes.com will benefit from Facebook's decision to allow users to report items in their newsfeed which they believe to be 'fake'.

It is asking a number of organizations to arbitrate on items which are reported or which Facebook staff think may not be genuine, and decide whether they should be marked as 'disputed'...."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... domme.html

Re: Rumor has it...

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:28 am
by callmeslick
Daily Mail impugning others? Hilarious. The assault on facts continues, why are you pushing it, NS?

Re: Rumor has it...

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 8:11 am
by woodchip
callmeslick wrote:Daily Mail impugning others? Hilarious. The assault on facts continues, why are you pushing it, NS?
And yet you supply nothing to refute this. Attacking the messenger is not hip anymore slick

Re: Rumor has it...

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 9:01 am
by callmeslick
there are no proven facts to dispute in that article.

Re: Rumor has it...

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:22 pm
by Tunnelcat
That story is all over, but it's the same exact news item everywhere. We'll see what Zuckerberg and crew eventually do about it. :wink:


Re: Rumor has it...

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 5:42 pm
by callmeslick
those specifics are 'all over' sites like Daily Caller, but hardly the mainstream. The Bloomberg guy got a bit of a smokescreen around ongoing divorce proceedings, but no real story otherwise. Sure, you're going to hire folks with political experience and thus party affiliation, but if you are fact checking via a group process, which they claim they are(and no one really disputes with facts), so what?