No, that was after a loud public outcry over how ridiculous their inability to fact-check was.
What's the issue? They acknowledged they made a mistake and they fixed it.
They weren't able to tell the difference
They absolutely were.
Snopes determines what to cover based on reader input via email, Facebook and Twitter as well as what’s trending on Google, social media and its own website searches. As a result, it often covers claims and satire that, to many, may seem obviously false or intentionally humorous.
So of course they know that the site is satirical, but this particular article seemed to be causing confusion because of stupids - examples are listed in the Snopes article - so they responded. In their response they were a bit harsh and questioned whether the BabylonBee article even counted as satire or was appropriate:
The original Snopes piece included the subheadline, “we’re not sure if fanning the flames of controversy and muddying the details of a news story classify an article as ‘satire.’” It called the Bee story a “ruse” and suggested it had been published “in an apparent attempt to maximize the online indignation.”
(source:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/03/us/snopes-babylon-bee.html )
So sure, they went in a bit hard but if you're suggesting they looked at the BabylonBee article and thought "Wow, did that happen?! We must investigate!" then that's obviously bollox.
Luckily, now that Snopes is largely discredited, social media sites mostly stopped relying on it.
Snopes pulled out of the partnership with FB - admittedly my source for that is Snopes but I've not found anything which contradicts it.
I don't think Snopes is largely discredited. They seem to be highly regarded by most.
https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/is-snopes-biased-reliable/Obviously people with certain agendas will have a different view
trusting random blogs as your source of facts tends not to work out.
That's why I don't pay much heed to your Wiki (
haaaaa) . But Snopes aren't exactly a random blog, their raison d'etre is fact checking.
Your insistence on defending them despite the obvious tells us something about you, too.
Sure. And your insistence on defaming them without much real evidence tells us something about you too.
I wouldn't say I'm "dedicated" to Snopes, but I've found them to be reliable.
Your criticism of them isn't based on a whole load of things on their site which are wrong, your best shot seems to be "They thought a BB article was real!!!1!1!!".
Which clearly isn't what happened here.
I've done some "digging of my own", the NY Times article seemed to give a pretty balanced account.