LiberateJohnDoe

These sites are themselves prone to becoming politicized or making value judgments.

How will you deal with anonymous sources -- informants and others who require anonymity? Sometimes it's not only leaking their name or personal info that puts them in danger, but revealing secondary information (like who would be the few prior who had access to a certain bit of information).

Traditionally, these points would be vetted between journalist and editor or board of editors (and possibly lawyers). There are certain functions of an editor that may be difficult or impossible to reproduce.

Good luck.

Thank you for providing some background to my comment.

You might be interested in my response further down in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ctwr3w/i_built_a_platform_for_journalism_with_open/exqjk9b

For the record, I think satire (along with live and recorded forms of comedy that critique or bring awareness to current and historical events) constitutes one of the institutions critical to civilization, an institution that needs to be defended now more than ever.

I think we are better served by seeing subtleties of difference than by broadly painting people or organizations 'good' or 'bad', 'success' or 'failure'.

It's in the nature of some of the issues they deal with. Every reporting organization has to come to terms with how free speech impacts on other rights -- where they draw the line, so to speak.

Whether they lean left or right, or find some indefinable middle, the nature of the decision is already political.

Snopes has done a lot of good; but it's not a perfect world, and we need to be aware that even fact-checkers aren't perfect, unbiased entities.