Snopes.comReviews of snopes.com

Who fact checks the fact checkers? ...Fact checkers who are paid to say whatever the person pays them to say?

This people try to explain why Montaigner was wrong about what he said about Covid19. The question is if he had say that or not, and he did.. Im sure for many other reason this is the worst type of desinformation agency.

A 'fact' checker that's biased to the left. Basic political corruption. Do NOT trust.

Snopes has somehow risen to prominence as a fact checker despite their methodology for checking facts being as rigorous as a google check. They do not use credible sources, have any justification beyond their biased claims. The entire organisation consists of the owner and two former sex workers, one of which he had an affair with. None of those involved have any qualifications in any related field or at a sufficiently level to justify their apparent credibility. They play to popular left-wing talking points and have strong and public political affiliations. I recommend five minutes to investigate these "fact-checkers" before using them for their stated purpose as they would not be considered reliable, trustworthy and certainly not academically robust.

I went to look up antifa and information on Floyd. There was a lot of justification which seemed designed to come up to predetermined conclusion. Pure crap disguised under pretense of investigation and consideration.

I thought this fact checking organization would be an unbiased, non-partisan politically, actually not political at all, and provide honest, straight up information for people who really want to be well informed, and not misinformed or used and abused as a platform to sound off politically. Not only that, but when I went to REVIEW SNOPES, I had to sign in. After my negative review, a screen popped up saying that I will get an email to confirm the email address. Shocker that I never did get an email. This tells me that they are actually screening honest reviews, have no intention of trying to be a better company, and don't care the least about the audience/ reader. Very disappointed.

Very unreliable sourcing and information, denying events that actually happened for the entire world to see.

Biased. Liberal. Not objective.