Highest Rated Comments

AnotherAnonGringo247 karma

Guess a journalist can’t even do some investigative work to see what he’s referring to 🤷🏽‍♂️

It's an opinion piece. Basically, a glorified blog post.

AnotherAnonGringo83 karma

Currently I work with a team of fact checkers to produce the content. Any journalist or concerned citizen is welcome to submit content if they like, as long as they always back it with reviewable fact checking. This concept of "open source" fact checking though anyone is free to use on their own sites, and I'd happily help journalists who would like to adopt it.

So you're just Snopes? I thought the journalists would create and own their own pages, but you're the gatekeeper of what is "acceptable" or not?

I don't know you or your "team of fact checkers". How do I know you're not a front for the Russian or Chinese disinformation campaigns? How do I know you're not accepting donations or dollars from a source that might bias you? If someone broke a story about your employer and it might put you out of a job, how would you handle the publication of that?

AnotherAnonGringo72 karma

The name is not even trademarked.

Because the USPTO denied it. So they officially registered under Black Lives Matter Global Network.



Right now, you, me, anyone here on Reddit can go out and establish our own BLM group.

Not an official one: https://blacklivesmatter.com/how-to-become-a-chapter/

AnotherAnonGringo58 karma

The point of “open source” fact checking, is all the primary source evidence and reasoning is completely reviewable by you, the reader.

Snopes also links to their evidence for me to check. So does Wikipedia.

I applaud your effort, but I feel like you've jumped into this without much research.

So by design “open source” journalism would reveal manipulation if it ever happens.

Unless of course, you or your "team of fact checkers" are compromised and you happen to not post a link that might show information you don't want published.

AnotherAnonGringo49 karma

they tend to turn into creating communities of the most detestable variety.

In 50 years we're going to look back on the rapid rise of social media with no oversight as an stupendously ignorant act, driven by profits, behind a guise of 'free speech for everyone.'