Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

Is there something I'm missing? What is it that supposedly makes them "credible" that people swear by this site?

Is there something I'm missing? What is it that supposedly makes them "credible" that people swear by this site?

(post is archived)

[–] • 17 pts

Mostly false. The money was not spent on 'prostitutes' (plural) but on only one prostitute (singular.) We cannot be sure that this is a cat, since part of its face is obscured. The fact that the author gets these two crucial facts wrong removes all credibility from the rest of his claims.

/Snopes

[–] • 6 pts

I am a fact checker for Facebook, I concur that this is totally taken out of context and may contain misleading information. I will use my other account as a politifact checker and voice that politifact agrees with the assessment and therefor will rate this entire meme as false.

[–] • 4 pts

Twitter fact checker here. Clearly, a consensus of industry experts above has deemed the linked image above to constitute harmful misinformation, and therefore to be in violation of community standards against abusive behavior, which may include racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, incitement to insurrection, and kicking cats. We are left with no choice but to suspend your account permanently. Please do not respond to this communication as replies will not be monitored.

[–] • 4 pts

The real takeaway from this is any of us can create something online that has authority and credibility.

We desperately need more projects like that, led by people like us.

[–] • 0 pt

Agreed, I want to be the face of a company like this, the one that deals with the "people" part.

[–] • 0 pt

I agree with this. It is painfully easy. It just takes someone with some initiative to start doing it. Which most people don't have.

[–] • 3 pts

I remember when Snopes was useful for calming hyper-nervous female colleagues that the email they received about about a stalker in supermarket carparks using string on door handles to distract them isn't true. Now it's pure left-wing mouthpiece bollocks.

[–] • 1 pt

Snopes is still useful when you receive an email from a Nigerian prince who needs to deposit $20 million into your checking account

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

So first they calmed hyper-nervous women about a murderer with string on the door, now they tell hyper-nervous women that a pulley on a door is actually someone threatening to murder them.

[–] • 2 pts

He must have a 'double chin' fetish.

[–] • 2 pts

I just keep liking him more.

[–] • 2 pts

I remember when it was an interesting site, touching on old urban myths.

[–] • 1 pt

Even then I remember it had a politics section devoted to deboonking bad press about various feminists. The urban myths were cool though.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

Bode Lang on the

All major fact checking sites are bought and paid for by the Democratic Party.

[–] • 1 pt

Dem tiddies, though..

[–] • 1 pt

If I could only rely on just one, it would definitely be the cat, which is above the concept of treating everything he dislikes as false.

[–] • 0 pt

That god damned cat I KNEW IT.

[–] • 0 pt

ad hom

[–] • 2 pts

Or highlighting the fact that this site is just a couple of Anyplebs.

[–] • 0 pt

That is not evidence about the claims on the site.

[–] • 2 pts

You've failed to answer my question from the text of this post.

[–] • 1 pt

Yes, it is. It highlights the fact that, contrary to appearances, the site is not actually run by honest, impartial, rational, experts who are thereby entitled to make definitive and authoritative pronouncements on any issue but by conniving, semi-literate, fuck-ups with poor morals, and by the looks of it, bad personal hygiene.

[–] • 0 pt

Snopes are niggerlovers therefore everything they say is invalid.

Load more (4 replies)