ozoned

So for every single news article you completely research every facet of a company? You have way more patience than i do. But that probably is what it takes on the internet today.

I'd assume once you research a company though that you wouldn't research it again, you just save yourself time and go based on your original research?

Or do you check up on each and everytime?

Do you have a list of ones you trust?

I'm not insisting anything. How do you verify the website that was given to you in the search engine iz trustworthy?

And internet search providers aren't biased at all either, right?

There's so much false info on the internet tout can't trust any of it. None of them are regulated. in my experience at least snopes and mbfc try to back up their claims.

So you just randomly look up stuff and believe whatever hit is first?

Search engines are biased on how you phrase things.

So you have zero trustworthy sources you're saying.

I'm legitemately asking you, for the fourth time, give me some sources.

I'm attempting to educate myself more, but you give zero information to help that, outside of critizing me, but yet you insist i'm the troll.

Ok.

So do you do all your own scientific research as well? Have you confirmed gravity? Or do you just trust that it's real?

We have to assume some level of trust on some line, until proven otherwise.

Yes, what i'm doing is asking for actually information. If toy want to suggest alternatives, i'll check them out. Instead you just want everyone to trust you on your word. And looking at your history you just want to live in your bubble and fight anyone that doesn't agree with you.

So give us some alternatives.

Or ignore me and prove me right, and i sincerely do wish everyone, including you, a good life. And not in the sarcastic way you dismiss people.

Awesome, so instead of actually giving evidence and attempting to push the conversation forward by offering better solutions, instead you just insult people got it.

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.

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.

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.

I'm in the US so Reuters, NPR, AP. But there are so many "news" websites around anymore I usually take everything I read with a dose of skepticism and I look at Snopes and MediaBiasFactCheck often.