*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1149
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Successfully Treated by Vitamin C
« Reply #80 on: June 24, 2020, 10:02:56 PM »

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/03/09/coronavirus-its-time-to-debunk-claims-that-vitamin-c-could-cure-it/


As much as it pains me to side with Tom B, Snopes has been shown to be anything but impartial.

Note, not defending the Vitamin C
Nothing Guest has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Guest's own delusions opinions.

Re: Coronavirus Successfully Treated by Vitamin C
« Reply #81 on: July 14, 2020, 04:01:08 PM »
Have they though? I mean, I found this:

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/is-snopes-biased-reliable/

But then you could say is that reliable and so it goes on. I've generally found them to be reliable.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11738
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Coronavirus Successfully Treated by Vitamin C
« Reply #82 on: July 14, 2020, 09:51:37 PM »
Have they though?
Yes, they have.

Try to escape the shit-stack of citing Web articles to defend other Web articles and engage in some thinking of your own for a moment.

Here's my take: A fact-checking service that can't tell the difference between Babylon-Bee-style satire and deliberate malicious disinformation is not reliable.

Now, try to form your own take.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Coronavirus Successfully Treated by Vitamin C
« Reply #83 on: July 15, 2020, 07:20:57 AM »
Have they though?
Yes, they have.
Examples?

My own take is I've found them to be reliable. I don't know how else to judge a fact checking service other than whether the things they post are factually correct. If you have examples of them posting stuff which isn't and especially if they have not later corrected that then show me some and I can have a look.

EDIT: I found this:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#122bf24f227f

Raises some concerns about the way they work. OK, but does it matter how they work if the end result is they get things right?
So are they actually getting things wrong? What examples are there of them doing so?
« Last Edit: July 15, 2020, 07:33:41 AM by AllAroundTheWorld »
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11738
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Coronavirus Successfully Treated by Vitamin C
« Reply #84 on: July 20, 2020, 12:41:54 AM »
Examples?
I gave you one already. They decried the Babylon Bee, an Onion-style satirical website, to be fake news. In my view, if you are so inept as to not be able to tell the difference between the two, you are not reliable.

What's next? Are we going to look very serious at each other why declaring that The Daily Mash does not accurately report the news? Christ on a bike.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Coronavirus Successfully Treated by Vitamin C
« Reply #85 on: August 04, 2020, 10:40:26 AM »
I gave you one already. They decried the Babylon Bee, an Onion-style satirical website, to be fake news. In my view, if you are so inept as to not be able to tell the difference between the two, you are not reliable.
Except they could tell the difference. They labelled it satire:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-lawmaker-go-back-claim/

THEY could tell the difference, other people seemingly couldn't. They even explain that in the above, they give examples of people who didn't "get" it. And I note this link has this comment:

Quote
Editors’ Note: Some readers interpreted wording in a previous version of this fact check as imputing deceptive intent on the part of Babylon Bee in its original satirical piece about Georgia state Rep. Erica Thomas, and that was not the editors’ aim. To address any confusion, we have revised some of the wording mostly for tone and clarity. We are in the process of pioneering industry standards for how the fact-checking industry should best address humor and satire.

So they have the ability to self-correct when they do get things wrong or word things badly.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2020, 10:50:35 AM by AllAroundTheWorld »
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11738
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Coronavirus Successfully Treated by Vitamin C
« Reply #86 on: August 04, 2020, 10:53:36 AM »
They labelled it satire
No, that was after a loud public outcry over how ridiculous their inability to fact-check was. They weren't able to tell the difference, where literally everyone without a severe mental impairment could. Sure, once their monumental fuck-up circled the Earth four times over, they corrected it.

You're trying to describe it as some virtuous act, when in reality it was a long-overdue clean-up. It took them years to stop fucking up, and in the meantime social media sites like Facebook used their incorrect "fact-checks" to impose restrictions on the satirical site, even threatening their monetisation streams. Luckily, now that Snopes is largely discredited, social media sites mostly stopped relying on it. This is a good thing - trusting random blogs as your source of facts tends not to work out.

Your insistence on defending them despite the obvious tells us something about you, too. Either you didn't bother to fact-check (haaaaa) the story before forming your opinion, or you're so dedicated to Snopes that you can't accept their flaws. I'm assuming the former - you don't strike me as the kind of guy to fall in love with a random blog.

If you're not going to do any digging of your own, at least have a look at the mediocre work Wikipedia has already done for you.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2020, 11:00:00 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Coronavirus Successfully Treated by Vitamin C
« Reply #87 on: August 04, 2020, 01:52:52 PM »
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.

Quote
They weren't able to tell the difference

They absolutely were.

Quote
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:

Quote
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.

Quote
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

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11738
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Coronavirus Successfully Treated by Vitamin C
« Reply #88 on: August 04, 2020, 02:19:24 PM »
Sure. And your insistence on defaming them without much real evidence tells us something about you too.
I'm not "defaming" anyone - I'm pointing out fairly simple facts, to which your best response is that you've "personally found Snopes reliable" (how did you establish that?).

Unfortunately, providing you with sources is a bit difficult, since Snopes mysteriously decided to opt out of the Wayback Machine shortly after they lost their partnerships (plural) and edited their articles to stop the bleeding. I wonder why they did that. 🤔🤔🤔

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!!".
My point, which I think I've made quite succinctly, is that an organisation which fails to distinguish between satire and deliberate disinformation (or deliberately blurs the lines between the two) can be described as "not impartial". That was the original position you chose to contest. So, on the one hand, we have a media organisation that the big players are no longer willing to touch with a long pole, and which kow-towed to the Bee just in time not to get sued out of existence. On the other hand, we have your personal credulity.

Don't use shit sources to back up your arguments. You'll be a happier man. And when they do finally go bankrupt, you'll already have alternatives that don't suck lined up. Win-win-win ;)
« Last Edit: August 04, 2020, 02:26:07 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Coronavirus Successfully Treated by Vitamin C
« Reply #89 on: August 06, 2020, 05:02:02 PM »
I'm not "defaming" anyone - I'm pointing out fairly simple facts, to which your best response is that you've "personally found Snopes reliable" (how did you establish that?).

Right. The bit in bold is a really good question.
How do you fact check the fact checkers? All I can say is they seem to be well regarded in the fact checking area - I provided a source for that. And just generally I can't think of an occasion when I've used the site to check something and then later found that what Snopes told me was wrong.
Have you?

The example you gave wasn't them getting something wrong exactly. The story they reported on was factually incorrect, but it was from a satire site which they obviously knew. They gave examples of people being confused by it but I agree they should have initially labelled it as Satire rather than False/ They admitted this and corrected it. Maybe they only did that in response to a backlash but whatever, they didn't double down like they could have.

Quote
they lost their partnerships (plural)

Do you have a source for that? I've been focusing on their partnership with FB which according to all the sources I've found Snopes left.
You're claiming that the "big players" won't touch them, what's your source for that?

Quote
My point, which I think I've made quite succinctly, is that an organisation which fails to distinguish between satire and deliberate disinformation (or deliberately blurs the lines between the two) can be described as "not impartial".

How does that term apply to a fact checking site? Their job is to determine truth. Something is either true or it isn't. How does impartiality come into that? Do you mean in terms of the things they choose to cover or choose not to? From what I understand they choose those based on what is trending and things which they're pointed towards.

Ultimately I'd suggest the stature of a fact checking organisation should lie in whether the things they post are accurate. You gave an example where they perhaps approached things in the wrong way but you haven't provided a whole list of things they've published which are just factually incorrect. That would be a better way of discrediting them. Whether they're impartial in terms of the things they cover is a separate issue, I'm willing to concede they might be (although haven't personally seen evidence of that, not that I've really looked. Generally I've used them to check FB memes which tend not to be political. They've served me well for that.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Toddler Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 3017
  • I am Toddler Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Successfully Treated by Vitamin C
« Reply #90 on: August 18, 2020, 06:48:11 PM »
Dammit. This is where my Joe Rogan link should have gone. Sorry if you already saw it.

I blame the mods. They should never have merged the coronavirus threads.

Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 711
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Successfully Treated by Vitamin C
« Reply #91 on: August 20, 2020, 06:55:04 PM »
Well I'm old and take 1100 mg C, stay in hot hot sun while taking my Vit D 100% /100% zinc

What's Covid? Oh that mask sheet.
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

*

Offline timterroo

  • *
  • Posts: 1051
  • domo arigato gozaimashita
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Successfully Treated by Vitamin C
« Reply #92 on: August 21, 2020, 02:33:51 PM »
Well I'm old and take 1100 mg C, stay in hot hot sun while taking my Vit D 100% /100% zinc

What's Covid? Oh that mask sheet.

You do realize that taking these vitamins will help anyone generally stay healthy from any number of ailments and diseases. It’s not a magical cure for covid.
"noche te ipsum"

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  - Albert Einstein

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6544
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Successfully Treated by Vitamin C
« Reply #93 on: August 21, 2020, 03:16:02 PM »
To be fair Vit D appears to be quite an Ed fe Croce prophylactic against respiratory illness.

Re: Coronavirus Successfully Treated by Vitamin C
« Reply #94 on: August 21, 2020, 03:45:18 PM »
Well I'm old and take 1100 mg C, stay in hot hot sun while taking my Vit D 100% /100% zinc

What's Covid? Oh that mask sheet.

You do realize that taking these vitamins will help anyone generally stay healthy from any number of ailments and diseases. It’s not a magical cure for covid.
You're correct. Not a cure, but effective treatment.

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 700
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Successfully Treated by Vitamin C
« Reply #95 on: August 21, 2020, 03:57:43 PM »
Well I'm old and take 1100 mg C, stay in hot hot sun while taking my Vit D 100% /100% zinc

What's Covid? Oh that mask sheet.

You do realize that taking these vitamins will help anyone generally stay healthy from any number of ailments and diseases. It’s not a magical cure for covid.
You're correct. Not a cure, but effective treatment.

An effective treatment the same way making sure they drink lots of water and rest is good treatment of the symptoms, but doesn't actually treat or cure the disease itself.

Nobody is saying water is an 'effective treatment' for COVID, and a lack of water is even worse than lack of vitamin c.

The only thing vitamin c treats is a lack of vitamin c.  It's not a cure, it's not a treatment, it's nothing more than water or giving someone a blanket.

People shouldn't be misled into thinking they can cure COVID by taking a vitamin.


*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6544
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus Successfully Treated by Vitamin C
« Reply #96 on: August 21, 2020, 04:03:09 PM »
Vitamin D literally helps the immune system fight respiratory disease so it’s a more targeted treatment than water or even Vitamin C