Skip Navigation

You're viewing a single thread.

51 comments
  • This has the same energy as the folks running around doing a disinfo op on Wikipedia. None of this is true and either OP wildly misunderstood the situation or they're intentionally being deceitful.

    • I'd assume good faith—misunderstanding. It's quite easy and sound to arrive at this interpretation if you forget that the current owners sold off their ad company a year before getting 100% control of Snopes.

      • In casual conversation IRL, if someone made this claim, I'd assume good faith. Or even in a reply to an existing discussion of Snopes. But OP decided to make a post without verifying their information and then went through and defended that take in the comments when people explained the actual facts to them. This wasn't done in good faith, it would appear.

51 comments