Why do people ask you to copy & paste a Facebook posts rather than sharing?

Why do people ask you to copy & paste Facebook posts rather than sharing?

If you use Facebook, then you will have seen these posts which end with “copy & paste, don’t share”.

Usually they relate to something that tugs at your heart strings, or it might be political or religious.  You read the post and then see at the bottom the line “don’t share, copy and paste”.

Why?????

If you agree with the post and think others should see it, surely clicking the SHARE button is the simple option; it is what it is there for, after all.

So why did your friend ask you to copy and paste and not to share?
I bet if you ask them they will say they don’t know.
I bet they simply copied and pasted it from another friend, who also didn’t know why.

There is one suggested reason people ask you to “copy and paste” rather than share that you can find on a few sites if you google, but it is incorrect.  It claims that Facebook reduces the prominence of posts with lots of shares – it doesn’t. So that can’t be the reason for all these “copy and paste” requests.

However, clicking the SHARE button may carry audience restrictions.  If your friend was using the “friends” audience setting, then if you share the post you may not always be able to set it to PUBLIC.  Similarly, if your friend deletes the original post you shared, it may disappear from your posts too.
In this respect, it can be said that a shared post is less prominent that a copy and paste post, however, this is not the principal reason why those heart-tugging posts ask you to “copy and paste, don’t share!”

It should be fairly obvious that there are negative reasons for stating “copy and paste, don’t share!” so here are a couple I have found:

REASON 1 – SELF SELECTION

You are being asked to self-select yourself for something later.

When you simply share a post you like with your friends there is no way to track it further than your first share; no way to find out who else has shared it further on.

But if you copy and paste the post exactly, the potential future scammer can find you and target you.

Here is an example of how  the “copy and paste, don’t share” request works

There has been a “copy and paste” post going around recently about animal abuse. As well as the directive to “Do not share”  but instead “copy and paste” this, the post contains a key phrase with incorrectly spelt words.

A person who copies and pastes it can easily be found by searching Google with the operand  site:facebook.com “key phrase here” 

The potential scammer can now see a long, long list of Facebook users who have copied and pasted the exact message about animal abuse.

Now they have a target list of people who they can be reasonably sure will react to a new post, an new “like” request, a new friend request, or some other “support us” plea that is related to animal abuse.

So you have self-selected that you are someone who cares about animal abuse and who is also perhaps a teeny bit gullible (or so the scammer hopes). You are now a target for a scammer and you are likely to soon be asked for money for some supposedly related cause.

Of course, this can work for any subject.
Key phases to look out for run along these lines:

  • “don’t scroll without typing amen.”
  • “if you woke up this morning and you are thankful every day while being bless scroll down and type amen”
  • “how many likes can she get?”
  • “this baby still cute, scroll if you are heartless”
  • “ignore if your heartless”
  • “keep scrolling if you are heartless”
  • “Ignore If You Have No Heart”
  • “PLEASE DON’T IGNORE”
  • “Don’t scroll without saying R.I.P”
  • “This is so sad type AMEN and lets see how many amens and likes he can get”
  • “Don’t scroll without showing respect”
  • “Please don’t scroll down without saying “Amen”
  • “Don’t Press Watch Without Typing Amen”
  • “1 like = 1000 prayers Don’t scroll without typing amen”
  • “Would You Save Your Mother? Type Yes Ignore NO”
  • “Do you trust in prayers? If yes so please pray for this baby take a minute and type “Amen” your one amen is one prayer if you don’t love children so you can skip this”

The “type Amen” posts are particularly prevalent at the moment, so avoid those and, if you do happen to be religious, say a little prayer to yourself asking God to help whoever the subject of the post is (they may actually be real and if they aren’t God will know) and also pray for the scammer that they might find a better cause – then move on.  God doesn’t really need you to type anything.

REASON 2 – SPREADING HOAXES

Another reason for the “copy and paste, don’t share” request is that by copying and pasting a message, you are creating another instance of the message that is not dependent upon the original.  Credit http://www.thatsnonsense.com/hoax-posts-ask-copy-paste/)

If 5000 people share a hoax or fake news message by clicking Share, and for some reason that original message was removed (for example, deleted by Facebook for being fake!) then all those 5000 “shares” will vanish at the click of a mouse. If the original post being shared is removed, so do all of its shares.

The same doesn’t apply if you copy and paste a message, then post it. If 5000 people copy and paste a message to their own timeline, and the original gets removed, you still have 4999 instances of the message remaining on Facebook, since they are all separate posts, independent of each other.

Another reason, of course, is that it makes it harder to track down the person who started a hoax, since we’re all passing along a message in a digital game, and the privacy settings of many users often makes it impossible to track the original creator of a particular message.

This is a tactic often employed by hoaxers to help their posts remain on Facebook for as long as possible, and is most often the reason hoaxers prefer copying and pasting, as opposed to sharing.

In summary – don’t copy and paste posts on Facebook until you think for a moment about why you might be being asked to copy and paste.

If you feel strongly about a post, simply share it.
But always also remember to check if it is actually true first.
As a minimum, start by running it past Snopes or another fact checker of your choice and search for the original article.

Here is a wonderful guide to Facebook hoaxes and the perils of copy and paste requests with many examples of past hoaxes and the reasons they were created.

WHEN COPY AND PASTE MAY BE APPROPRIATE

There are occasions when to copy & paste Facebook posts is appropriate, but that should be your decision.  Don’t just copy and paste because the post asks you too – consider why you are being asked.
If a post specifically asks you to copy and paste, they really should tell you the reason why they are making the request.

Here are a few reasons I can think of to copy & paste Facebook posts rather than sharing them that, to me, seem quite legitimate:

  1. When you’d like to share a post but need to edit it for clarity, spelling or grammar.
  2. When sharing would compromise your friend’s privacy (eg the post has their kid’s names in it or their locality).
  3. When you want to add an image to the post.
  4. When you want to personalise a post.
  5. When you are sharing information about a business or group that is important to you and you want to reach the widest audience.

I am sure there are other reasons; feel free to add them in the comments below.

copy & paste Facebook posts

PLEASE NOTE:    I AM AUSTRALIAN.
WE USE UK SPELLING.
PLEASE DON’T COMMENT  TO “CORRECT” IT.

289 Replies to “Why do people ask you to copy & paste a Facebook posts rather than sharing?”

  1. Thank you for this information. And I like the traditional English spelling of words (i.e., theatre, etc.). Different countries speak and spell differently and I, for one, enjoy the different dialects and accents. It makes the world more interesting.

  2. there is only one English the one from England the so called American English is Just idlenessd on the part of Americans to learn proper English its like french that has been basterdised to make creole french
    so you Americans get on your computers and change your spell check to UK English and learn how English should be pronounced

    1. lol You sound like an incredible snob. What do you think? That YOUR English was just invented one day by God? Every language spoken today (that I know of) has developed and changed over centuries depending on a ton of factors. If you want to be more of a purist, perhaps you should start speaking like a character in The Canterbury Tales. Or hey–why not go back to speaking Latin? I like proper spelling and grammar (and I naturally use a lot of spelling you probably do, since I’m Canadian), but I think your argument is pretty silly.

      1. The point of view of linguists is that the only thing that matters is that you make the point you intend to make. Grammar, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation are only important as so far as that is concerned. Language is primarily interactional so in conversation especially, paralinguistic cues, (rate of speech, pauses and length of pauses, body language etc.) become significant too. So the most erudite English is useless if you haven’t conveyed your message to your intended audience.

        By that measure, pidgins, creoles, txtspk (lol, see wot I did) all have their useful places in language as does, academic English, international English, Received Pronunciation, and so on.

      2. Or perhaps Semajsel should learn Anglo-Saxon, the language of Britain for many centuries before Chaucer. Then let’s see how “idle to learn” S/HE is, when s/he has to learn 80 different endings per regular verb, and several tenses and cases modern English doesn’t have. We won’t even go into the verse forms. 🙂

    2. Your comments about American English are arrogant. American English is a valid form of the language derived from 17th and 18th century English. There is New Zealand English. (English from 1840s) Australian English derived from late 17th century English. No Semasjel, British English is a valid version, but not the only one. All versions are valid, but the only pure one used to be spoken in Inverness.

    3. Not that it matters, but it is interesting to note that some historians believe American English is actually closer to old English in some ways than British English. Why? Because in moving across the ocean, the theory goes, the language moved away from continental European & other foreign influences that have so altered British English over the centuries. I think it’s a curious theory but your casual dismissal of the many other forms of English spoken by hundreds of millions around the world is quite… well, narrow! Quite provincial. English isn’t dead, as you imply; it is vibrantly alive as a direct result of its flexible, ever-evolving & ever-changing nature.

    4. One english but with several accents within a small area. That makes a lot of sense. ? Sarcasm intended.. Your claim is quite puzzling.

    5. Perhaps if you are going to bang on about proper English, you could exercise the use of proper grammer as well. Try using a bit of punctuation. Hypocrite!

    6. Wow, let’s see how YOUR English stacks up:
      You didn’t capitalize your sentence. You didn’t capitalize “French” or “Creole”.
      It was one huge run-on.
      “Idleness…to learn” is poor usage.
      You didn’t use commas or semicolons where you should have.
      You didn’t hyphenate “so-called”, which is a compound modifier.
      Even by British standards, you misspelled “bastardised”. You also misspelled “idleness”.
      Spell-checkers don’t teach you how to pronounce words
      .
      Linguistic imperialism is silly even if you can express it competently in its own “original” language (which is never actually the original anyway). If you can’t, please spare yourself some embarrassment and STFU.

    7. And that comment is; encouraging, productive, unifying? Be careful of how you judge others lest judgment in a greater degree be visited upon you.

  3. Spelt is a grain. Spelled is the past tense of spell. This one error is easily corrected, and would make sharing your important article less painful

    1. From the OED :
      spelt
      spɛlt/Submit
      past and past participle of spell

      Blogger clearly states they use UK Spelling, so most likely they use UK words too.

    2. From The Grammarist:

      “In American English, spelt primarily refers to the hardy wheat grown mostly in Europe, and the verb spell makes spelled in the past tense and as a past participle. In all other main varieties of English, spelt and spelled both work as the past tense and past participle of spell, at least where spell means to form words letter by letter or (with out) to make clear. Outside the U.S., the two forms are interchangeable in these uses, and both are common.”

      So, while it is considered a somewhat archaic usage, it is acceptable in to use spelt as the past tense and past participle.

    3. Adrian, it all depends if you are American or British. Other examples are burn and burned, burnt
      Dream and dreamed, dreamt,
      learn, learned, learnt
      Smell, smelled, smelt
      Spell, spelled and spelt

      So there you have it

  4. I’d must check with you here. That is not something I generally do! I delight in reading a post that can make men and women believe. Also, thanks for permitting me to comment!

        1. Ah! Thanks. That’s one of those words I know I misspell and I then double guess myself thinking the “e” is wrong and it must be “a”. I will correct it 🙂

        2. I was wondering why my spell-checker wasn’t ever picking that error up and as a result I learned something very interesting. The word “dependent” is an adjective meaning to be controlled or supported by someone or something else (as in dependent on drugs or dependent upon the weather). In UK English, the word “dependant” is the noun used for a person who is dependent (as in the mother and her dependant). So, although I am spelling the word incorrectly in this context (thanks June) it turns out that it can be spelt with an “a” if it is used as a noun. Since I went to primary school in the UK and use UK spellings, this might explain why I never get it right. Maybe after this I will remember 🙂

        3. It might help you to link it in your mind to defendant, which is, of course a noun. Can’t think of any way to make this ‘help’ less confusing!

      1. However, you did spell something questionable that caught my attention. “Spelt” is a grain and the past tense of spell is spelled.

          1. Just to name a few more countries. Australia, NZ, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Burma, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kenya, and almost half the English speaking world uses UK English. As usual, typical of American mentality, they think only they are spelling it correctly 8) …

          2. You guys are cracking me up! In America, where I was schooled, “cracking me up” is a phrase of entertainment such as laughing hysterically. Not to be confused with splitting oneself in two! All joking aside, very interesting topic.

    1. I am tempted to just remove all the pro and anti Snopes comments but it seems a bit like censorship so so far I haven’t done it.
      This article was never intended to be about Snopes and indeed, my reference to Snopes was really just an afterthought.

      1. Better yet, just remove the reference to Snopes in the article and leave the latecomers to wonder what in Goodness’ name they are all going on about

        Great article btw.

    2. Jack: From my experience these days, the “left/progressive stance” is the reality stance; i.e. I have not yet found anything on Snopes that is clearly an alternative fact, unlike many other sources. I’m continuing to use Snopes as my go-to source for information that is trustworthy.

    3. Right-wing people think Snopes is left wing because most of the lies on the internet are propagated by the right, not the left. It’s easy for rightists to feel Snopes is picking on them.

    4. You THINK that Snopes has lost credibility because you do not agree with the left/leaning ( your characterization) stance? Perhaps the truth does have a liberal bias and you are more comfortable living in your alternative reality.

  5. A good article – worth the effort by the author and for others the effort to share accordingly (not c/p I hasten to add). Loving the arguments between the ‘..professional fact seekers..’ Before social media when we had newspapers (remember them?) irrespective of the political slant by each paper, it was very, very normal to hear ‘..you don’t want to believe everything you read..’

    It seems that social media acolytes have forgotten that bar, club, shop floor and water cooler gossip is just that – gossip. Unfortunately the same social media acolytes scream ‘..truth or lie..’ and share the gossip as fact – which it is from the click share/like opinionated – it’s just that the recipients then scream exactly the same ‘..truth or lie..’ and off it all trots onto the next one.

    Perhaps it would be more accurate to call social media what it really is ‘..social gossip..’ and to treat it accordingly. In the UK, Parliament are considering discussing fake news and alternative facts and how best to neutralise this threat. Dear lord – really? Since when does anything any government deliberates about protecting the general public end well? Answers not required, but if you must…

    Remember Caveat Emptor? Suggest Caveat Lector would be a sensible extension of such simple wisdom…

  6. Quote: “…incorrectly spelt words.” If you are going to write a sentence about spelled you may want to not use the wrong word. It should read spelled. Spelt primarily refers to the hardy wheat grown mostly in Europe. Just a thought, maybe run spell check or read before you post.

    1. Blame my education; I consider “spelt” correct in this instance.
      I grew up in the UK and now live in Australia, where we use UK English.
      In UK English “spelt” and “spelled” are both acceptable as the past and past participle of “spell”, when “spell” refers to the arrangement of letters in a word, rather than a period of time or a magical incantation.
      The other example of “spelt” being the past and past participle of “spell” is when the meaning is to “add up to”, as in “it spelt his financial ruin”.
      “U.K., Irish, Australian, and New Zealand writers make no distinction between spelled and spelt.”
      REF: http://grammarist.com/spelling/spelled-spelt/

      1. You do have typos, but SPELT & misspelt isn’t one of them!!! I wondered how long it would take someone to go there. Doesn’t everyone have them? My phone changes words right before my very eyes… (Ticks me off to no end!)
        It’s also strange to see the time difference between our different locations

  7. What a shame this thread has become an argument about snopes instead of about the real reason, to copy and paste or not!. Another reason to NOT is that the key first line of the post makes it an easy “search criteria” on facebook for hackers. All people who paste will be displayed after one does a simple search for that feay line!! If you are going to copy/Paste, then make sure you change that first KEY LINE!!!!!

    1. Thanks Val.
      It’s difficult to know whether I should keep approving these comments about Snopes or not. They really are way off the point, as you say, but equally I don’t want to stop a robust discussion.

    2. How true. The real reason for the post has gotten lost in the politics and correct grammar and spelling departments. All you perfect spellers out there did you get the gist of the message? It bothers me that people simply can’t read a message without becoming spell checkers. Spelling has taken the back seat when it comes to our younger generation and it doesn’t seem likely to go back to what it was. I guess it’s evolving. I am Canadian and we also use BE. Thank you to the author for this important information. It has been extremely helpful to me. I will copy and paste to get the word around and I will also share. Now all you spelling nit pickers can have a ball with this comment of mine.

  8. Thank you for this article. I find it sad that the main thing most of the commenters have gotten stuck on is Snopes. I love Snopes. I trust it a helluva lot more than say… Breitbart. Anyway, to the context of the article. Most everyone is also not SEEING what you are trying to do (probably because they can’t get past what they don’t agree on) to help us keep ourselves safe on Facebook and more than likely other social media as well. STOP TYPING AMEN! Every time we type amen we are added to a database for that particular scammer and that database will be used later on to use our data for whatever scam they are perpetrating. STOP CUTTING AND PASTING! I saw the one guy said that if your FB privacy settings are “buttoned down” then you are safe. REALLY? Have they never heard of hackers? All this data that they get when you cut and paste their scam post goes right into their database and they can hack you whenever they want for whatever reason they want. BE SMART and stop trying to find things wrong with people that are trying to help you, like yourself, just because a small portion of their article might mention something you don’t agree with. Overall, very nice article and one I WISH more of my FB friends – who constantly type AMEN and cut and paste – would read and learn something. Your article is also supported by Facecrooks and Bitdefender. I share their stuff and will share this article as well.

    1. Nothing wrong with copying and pasting when it is your own choice to do so. This is really about why some poster ask you to copy and paste but not share.

  9. Great article! The only thing that confuses me is it seems some people have read the piece, yet justify their reposting something with corrected spelling. Why?! It’s fake! Any pictures you see in these posts have been taken out of context and most, if not all are being used without permission. There is no reason to ‘amen’ any of those. Please, stop.

  10. I’m glad someone has already picked up on the privacy settings issue.

    Another thing in your article that’s not entirely correct is that shares can’t be tracked. They can be tracked and are in fact designed to be tracked, page shares are tracked on Facebook Pages Insights!
    A copy & paste on the other hand can’t be tracked, if someone steals a post from a page by copy & paste, then the page owner cannot find out about this, unless indeed someone goes and uses Google in the way that you explain. However even that has it’s limits, once again, if your profile is locked down in privacy settings, it will be hard to find the post for anyone, because your profile is not publicly available to those outside your privacy settings. So I can go on your Facebook page, copy text, paste it onto my own timeline and you will be none the wiser because you don’t know I’ve been on your page and copied your content. If you Googled the post, you wouldn’t find me either because my profile is locked down and I don’t share much in public, most of my posts are shared with only my friends.

    Your article is going viral though amongst the Copy & Paste Mafia and is shared the world over, well done, a great marketing trick!

    1. Thank you for you comment about the page tracking, UKNic. You are correct – page admins can see the shares.
      And thanks too for the comment about privacy.
      I’m not sure if I will amend the article to add these points in or not. It might just over complicate the message a bit.
      I wasn’t actually thinking of marketing when I wrote this. I am a small web design business and only deal with businesses in my physical locality. It’s just too hard to design websites for people long distance and there is more than enough work here to keep me busy.
      Thanks again for the reply!

    2. Wrong UKNic, in fact the hackers are using this as a favourite as the a First line search of Facebook will, in fact reveal ALL posts with that “article” recently and make them readily available – the only way, apart from not copy and pasting in the first place, is to delete or change the first line totally!!

  11. Per the Wall Street Journal I think was in Aug 2014, George Soros acquired SNOPES. if they did not have private domain registration you would be able to see the owner details and any transfer of ownership.

  12. Snopes is a husband/wife team that are liberal and spreads fake crap. I learned this the hard way with egg on my face. Other than that line..thanks for the info.

  13. Credo che si sbaglia. Sono in grado di provarlo. Scrivere a me in PM, parlare.
    daviama
    Edited by Admin
    TRANSLATION FOR ENGLISH SPEAKERS –
    I think you are wrong. I can prove it. Write to me in PM, talking.

      1. I find that people who say that seem to have been embarrassed by someone pointing out that Snopes says something they have shared is fake-news.

          1. One. Just demonstrate one instance where you have caught them in a lie. Go on. Do it. Can’t do It? Hmmmm. It’s important to know who is lying.

          2. Snopes is still very reliable although right whingers have been trying to prove otherwise for some time.
            Checking sources is just plain common sense but Snopes is much less likely to misrepresent their sources than many “alternative fact” sites.

          1. Oh dear spirits… Mercola.com is the most unethical, frequently sued, piece of junk on the internet. bahahahaha. If they attack ANYTHING, value that thing.

          2. “Snopes is not telling you the truth!!”

            So says Mercola, the man who’s made a personal fortune from selling people expensive supplements that IN TRUTH do nothing for you and tanning beds which IN TRUTH raise your risk of skin cancer.

            His “evidence” is taken from the Daily Mail, a British tabloid famous around the world for its shoddy reporting, which has been caught numerous times fabricating its stories. Even then its evidence seems to be all “ad hominem” arguments (“we heard rumors that the guy’s new wife used to be a ho; it follows logically from that that their whole operation is shoddy and terrible!”)

            Your argument pretty much boils down to: “We can no longer let the sheepdog guard the flock. The fox wrote an article explaining why the sheepdog wasn’t trustworthy, and cited a lot of information he got from the wolf.” What possible reason could the fox and the wolf have to cast doubt on the sheepdog? Gee, that’s a tough one, unless you actually think about it.

          3. Yeah, because the clown behind the fake news site ‘natural news’ is the one to listen to when it comes to authenticity in reporting.

          4. Sometimes Snopes is just wrong. In an article about politicians receiving benefits after only one term, Snopes said this was false and that a minimum of 5 years was required, a correct statement, and that congressmen had 2 year terms, also correct, therefore requiring being elected for 3 terms before receiving these benefits. However, senate terms are for 6 years. Only one term necessary.

        1. snopes is so far left that they can not be considered to make a credited call on most topics, you should always do your own background check, look at the professor of journalism who said the cops harassed her because she was black, if you watch the video you will notice that you can’t see what color she is just that she was walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic the cops went over to her and told her for her own safety she should get out of the middle of the street. First snopes put it on that the lady was being harassed for being black then said it was likely she was once the video came out and you couldn’t tell anything about her because she was wearing gloves and a hat sunglasses and scarf and you couldn’t tell who they were just an idiot walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic. Look up Hillary landing under sniper fire if they haven’t changed it yet. Just make sure you do your own background check. It is like when they show a cop beating up somebody , you never see the part were the guy hits the cop or hits someone else first just the part with the cop beating up someone. just like the left they share part truths, Just always double check your facts with actual reports and other sources, never just trust the news no matter if it be CNN, FOX,CNBC or any other main stream media both sides got to lying so much I don’t think any of them would know the truth if it jumped up and hit them in the face.

          1. I agree with you sentiment that a wider fact checking is necessary before posting and if you don’t like or trust Snopes then use another way of verifying, however, fact checking is a whole other article and really not the main topic here. Maybe I should write one….

          2. Sounds like a nice story Tim but can’t you give a link, or even a name for this supposed event? And as for maintaining that the Snopes owners are “so far to the left”, well a bit of research would reveal that that is untrue. Well untrue unless the opinion comes from someone so far to the right that anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun is a raving commie.

          3. A fact is a fact. It is indisputable. The ‘truth’ is subjective depending on your vantage. Two people sit in a room. Their vantage point is different. Question everything.

          4. And make sure the source is not an ultra conservative one also as they tend to believe what they want to believe and are not unbiased. I had someone pull that on me. I quoted something to her about the SNAP program from the official SNAP website and she disagreed by using ultra conservative sources.

        2. I absolutely hate copy and paste statements, type amen if you agree posts, type your name for a comment posts, and the no one would give this person a like or share posts, ooh and lets not forget the share + love Jesus ones.
          I am a Christian, and everything, but seriously who wants to see a million people hitting amen on your post? And besides, most of the people I see sharing them are also sharing proud to be gay posts and or Horoscope posts. Like saying you belong to Jesus means anything when two posts down you are slapping him in the face??
          Glad to find out my personal repulsion to them may be keeping me from some scams though!! 🙂

      2. I think, as the article states, Snopes is a decent starting point. I start with Snopes as it is obviously a hub for these kinds of hoaxes, making it easy to find some information on the topic I’m researching. Though I would not go as far as to say Snopes is completely reliable or credible, they usually post sources that ARE. So I start with Snopes and then check out some of the sources they cite but I can also glean some other key phrases within their article to continue to search and verify. I do this, in part, because I simply find it interesting. I like doing some minor research on the web to either learn more about a topic or to debunk it and find out the actual truth. Some would find this too tedious and time consuming. In which case, simply don’t share if you are unsure!

        1. If you read carefully on Snopes, they will tell you themselves not to depend wholly on them for fact checking. There are plenty of other hoaxbusting sites, or one can go to original sources and do the heavy lifting.

        2. Snopes is OK for obvious urban legends, but on anything controversial they always take the Establishment line. Not Omniscient God by any means.

        3. Don’t ck on something conservative it related to Trump!
          You will get fake info for sure. They are in the tank with the left and give fake news answers. During election time Snopes was worthless. I will never trust them again. And poor Ivanka, snopes went out of the way not to say Ivanka pushed back on Nordstrom’s claim of poor sales…
          booo booo booo snopes

      3. They say it because supposedly the couple who run it have political leanings towards one side, and the opposing side doesn’t like that. So the opposing side says its not reliable.

      4. It was discovered not too long ago that the couple in California who started Snopes.com, are nothing more than extremely biased liberal Democrats. It is NOT a reliable source.

        1. “It was discovered not too long ago that the couple in California who started Snopes.com, are nothing more than extremely biased liberal Democrats.”

          Notice that the above statement had no reference links to support its claim.

          Factcheck.org asked one of the founders about their political leanings:
          “We asked David [Mikkelson]. He told us that Barbara is a Canadian citizen, and as such isn’t allowed to vote here or contribute money to U.S. candidates. As for him, “My sole involvement in politics is on Election Day to go out and vote. I’ve never joined a party, worked for a campaign or donated money to a candidate.”
          “You’d be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people,” David Mikkelson said. We checked online to see if he had given money to any federal candidates, and nothing turned up. Mikkelson even faxed us a copy of his voter registration form. He asked us not to post an image of it here, but we can confirm that it shows he declined to state a party affiliation when he registered last year, and also that when he registered in 2000 he did so as a Republican.”

          source:
          http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/
          Mikkelson

          1. A persons political affiliation should be private. Who you voted for should be private. Vote and get on with it. Stop fighting. Figure out a way to get food to every hungry person on the earth.

        2. Since they give sources for all their stuff, I don’t care if they are from Mars and workship the great moonglow. They show the places they use. Not make up stuff.

        3. The husband is not registered as a Democrat…he isn’t affiliated with any party at present but was a registered Republican. His wife is Canadian and not able to vote. I attended a non partisan, unbiased seminar about fake news. I specifically asked about allegations that Snopes was biased. Their response was that Snopes is not significantly biased. Fact check. org doesn’t consider them biased but as with all topics you should look for multiple sources to check your facts.

        4. Geez, having a liberal ideology does not change facts into fiction. The founders of Snopes discovered a need, that there was a ridiculous amount of fake news out there and when they found something dubious, they researched it and reported their findings. If most of what they debunk is anti-liberal, urban legend type stuff (Clinton’s body count now up to 48, for example), that doesn’t mean they are lying lefties, it means that most of what they are researching is being generated by right wing propagandists.
          If you disbelieve Snopes simply because you want to believe whatever it is that they have just disproved, you need to reevaluate the sources from which you’re getting your information – you have been brainwashed and need to learn how to think for yourself. Stop thinking that everybody who has a different opinion than you is being paid off by George Soros. There is nobody that rich!

      5. Not everyone says it. Only those who ignorantly believe what they hear and of course the ones who start the rumor. It’s just like when the WH says CNN is fake news. They want you to believe that so they can force feed lying crap to the American public.

      6. Because it’s composed of two people who research the item and make a decision based on the majority of found, or not found, related publications. They are also politically biased.

      7. Because Snopes has become like the rest of the news media. I just recently found out they don’t tell the truth but another company that tells you what they want you to believe.

          1. Indeed, Admin.

            Do the Snopes.com articles reveal a political bias? We reviewed a sampling of their political offerings, including some on rumors about George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, and we found them to be utterly poker-faced.

            David does say that the site receives more complaints that it is too liberal than that it is too conservative. Nevertheless, he says, “We apply the same debunking standards to both sides.”

            http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/

          2. Reports have been going around for some time that Trump hates handicapped people for the sole reason that he flailed his arms in one of his speeches in a way that, when still-framed, resembled the arm gesture of a particular handicapped man. The handicapped man in question was a reporter, formerly for the Washington Post, and currently for the New York Times. When reviewing the story in its entirety, it is clear that Trump in no way was trying to ridicule anyone, much less a handicapped person, in the manner reported, and later repeated by millions of Trump non-supporters. At the time when I saw this story, I immediately went to snopes.com to see what they had to say about it. Not a single word. Nothing!

            The following article provides a very detailed explanation of how the entire lie started, and was allowed to continue. https://www.catholics4trump.com/the-true-story-donald-trump-did-not-mock-a-reporters-disability/

            I couldn’t help but think that if someone had cooked up something like this about Obama, snopes would have had massive evidence coming from numerous angles so as to squelch the story.

            Yes, snopes absolutely does lie, by omission. All the time. The exact way that the liberal media lies. Birds of a feather!

          3. John, I have seen the whole video of him making the comment and gestures, and it’s more than clear he was ridiculing the reporter-abundantly clear. There was no spin being put on it, none was needed. It’s putting a spin on it to try and act like he wasn’t making fun of him. You need to look up a non-conservative, objective source and view this without it being edited or doctored and you will see for yourself. My god, it’s been all over the mainstream television networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc)-literally everyone in the free world has seen this; it’s hard to believe that there are still people arguing this point. I can only conclude that you get all of your ‘news’ from extreme right-wing propaganda sites if you’re still arguing he ‘didn’t mean’ to ridicule him.

      8. The couple who used to run it are divorced, and allegedly not amicably. Less “manpower” to run the checks.
        But then Wikipedia is not always reliable either.

      9. Because the racist right has declared snopes as unreliable. On the other hand, every major news source out there still uses snopes as the gold standard of fact checking. The fact checkers fact check each other, so if they all think snopes is the best, and the racist right thinks they need to ruin snopes’ reputation, that ought to explain why no one ever says why.

        You can fact check that info. I didn’t make it up.

        1. “Racist right”, is a very broad term, incorporating a lot of people. Can you offer a reference to back those claims up? Where did you find it out? Or did Snopes tell you that?

      10. This started going around during the election when many conservatives became angry that Snopes had begun posting more on rumors and stories about the candidates and they didn’t like Snopes’ conclusions. They in turn began spreading the word that Snopes was left-leaning and therefore, in their minds, not a credible source. At any rate, whether you’re a Republican or Democrat, I fail to see what bearing that would have on their reliability in terms of items that aren’t of a political nature.

      11. Because they found a few articles, and I mean very very small number, which were evaluated as having a left bias. Overall, they’re still good, but double check you’re not pushing someone else’s agenda.

    1. “Snopes is no longer reliable as a fact checker”

      I’m betting you started feeling that way when they posted items that were critical of someone you like (Trump, perhaps?).

      Of course, if you follow your statement to its logical conclusion, then all of the times that Snopes has debunked scurrilous rumors about Trump must also be “unreliable” — and therefore true.

      You can’t have it both ways. No medium is perfect, but Snopes’ articles tend to be well-sourced, which can’t always be said of ones that come from elsewhere.

          1. Snopes is quite left leaning. Even before Trump, much political stuff was inaccurate. But if you’re looking up most anything not political it seems pretty reliable. This was good information. I didn’t think there was much difference between copy/paste and share. But it makes a lot of sense!

        1. “800,000 Illegals Voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016-Disputed!”

          No, it’s not. Somebody took a 2014 voting data study–based on info from 2008 and 2010–and applied it to the 2016 vote. Total speculation, zero proof or even provable claims.

          “President Obama Banned Refugees from Iraq in 2011-Mostly Fiction!”

          but THEN in the article they say the opposite.

          “And, while arguments can be made that the Trump and Obama’s action on immigration have at least some similarities — the specific claim that Obama banned Iraqi refugees for six months in 2011 is false.”

          I’m giving them a pass.

          1. The way I read that is in one sentence it says “mostly fiction” and in another it says “false”. How do see that as a contradiction?

      1. Sometimes people have found that Snopes says something they hoped was true is, in fact, false.
        Then they want to shoot the messenger.

        1. Are you working for snopes you never seem to give any credit or even mention some of the other sights people have mentioned , it is like you are
          being bought and pay for by them. Like truthorfiction or some of the other ones that have a better performance then snopes.

          1. Haha – no, of course not.
            The article was actually about copy and paste requests. My advice to check on Snopes was really just an afterthought about making sure what you post is actually true.
            So I have seen no reason to update the original article.

    2. Snopes is no longer just a family affair. It’s grown, and any number of credible individuals and organizations trust it. No factcheckers will be 100% right, but Snopes’ record has been better than good. Also, Snopes identifies its sources so readers can do their own research.

    3. Rightwing disinformation. It’s a reliable site, always has been. They’ve discredited do many Rightwing disinformation memes they’re under attack.

    4. Bullshit. Snopes is reliable, diligent in its research, and constantly updated, particularly when new information is found on a particular subject.

    5. Snopes is run by a husband and wife team, the MIkkelsons. They basically use the internet and Google to ‘fact check’ – which, of course, you could do as well, and are only as reliable as the sources that they cite.

      1. As of the end of December, 2016, snopes.com hade twenty staff in six offices across three time zones.
        Snopes has not been two people since 2005.

        People who share/create biased claims are the ones who usually claim snopes.com is biased. What you usually find is the commenter is biased and doesn’t like his/her bullshit contradicted and people do that with snopes.com because snopes is well sourced and verifiable. It’s that simple. There is never an actual instance of snopes bias presented by the whiner snowflakes for us to evaluate if snopes is showing bias. That never happens because it never happens.

    6. Yes it is. You believe fake news! That’s exactly what they want so tell you all fact checking sites are liberal or unreliable….you’ve been had

    7. What’s your credible source to support the claim that Snopes is no longer reliable? And what are your alternative suggestions? TIA

    8. If you are going to make a statement like that, please back it up. If you don’t, I would assume it is safe to believe that is your personal opinion based on a bias you perceive, though your perception may have no basis in reality. My *opinion* is, Snopes is among the best fact checking site out there, but I never rely on only one, anyway.

    9. Snopes has NEVER has been a good standard of honestly. Quite left leanings in their supposed truths. This is a MUST read article but other options for verification should be available. Thank you.

      1. The forbes article is by a contributor, guest… no real relation to forbes. The utterly unprofessionalism of the very biased article (OMG he wouldn’t tell me about his personal divorce so he must be keeping public facts from us)… Learn to check info. The guy was kicked out of the National Center for Supercomputing Applications >>due to academic misconduct.<< Yeah trustworthy dude.
        http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Kalev_Leetaru#cite_note-6

    10. It is in fact reliable as a fact checker, unless you are into alternate facts.. in which case you won’t believe their facts.

      As for this still article… if your friend posts NOT PUBLIC, unless you copy and paste, no one but your mutual friends can see it. Period. Main reason to copy and paste. The rest is paranoid silliness.

    11. You are wrong. Snopes even “snoped” themselves. They are not the only “fact checker” – but they are consistently the most accurate. You can google that for the truth.

    12. Snopes is not reliable. I check the “truth or fiction” website. Has anyone heard about the reliability of truth or fiction?

    13. What is your basis for claiming that “Snopes is no longer reliable as fact checker”? Can you support your claim with direct evidence?

    14. Too bad you have no facts to back that up. Usually people only say that when they don’t like what Snopes says, not because it is false.

    15. Snopes is one of the best ones out there. They work very hard to check facts, but of course those are only as accurate as the original resources out there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Protected with IP Blacklist CloudIP Blacklist Cloud