It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EXCLUSIVE: Facebook 'fact checker' accused of defrauding website to pay for prostitutes

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   
(Had to shorten the title or it wouldn't fit)



One of the websites Facebook is to use to arbitrate on 'fake news' is involved in a bitter legal dispute between its co-founders, with its CEO accused of using company money for prostitutes.

Snopes.com will be part of a panel used by Facebook to decide whether stories which users complain about as potentially 'fake' should be considered 'disputed'.

But the website's own troubles and the intriguing choice of who carries out its 'fact checks' are revealed by DailyMail.com, as one of its main contributors is disclosed to be a former sex-blogger who called herself 'Vice Vixen'.

Snopes.com will benefit from Facebook's decision to allow users to report items in their newsfeed which they believe to be 'fake'.

It is asking a number of organizations to arbitrate on items which are reported or which Facebook staff think may not be genuine, and decide whether they should be marked as 'disputed'.
...

EXCLUSIVE: Facebook 'fact checker' who will arbitrate on 'fake news' is accused of defrauding website to pay for prostitutes - and its staff includes an escort-porn star and 'Vice Vixen domme'

According to the Daily Mail, Snopes' co-founder David Mikkelson is being accused of defrauding the website (fraud and embezzlement) to pay for prostitutes as stated by Mikkelson's former wife Barbara, who is embroiled in a legal dispute with her former husband in the wake of their divorce.

Barbara, founder of Snopes, claims her ex-husband embezzled $98,000 from the company and used the money on himself and prostitutes.

To top it off the new wife of Mikkelson, Elyssa Young, is a porn-star who maintains a website (website is still active) offering her escort services and at the same time works as an administrative worker on Snopes.

Elyssa Young courtesan at Self Employed Independent Peoplesoft Consultant


Then we have the main "fact checker" that Snopes uses is Kimberly LaCapria, who formerly worked for Inquisitr, and has openly described herself as been a sex-and-fetish blogger using the pseudonym 'ViceVixen'.

In fact, her "fact checking" posts in Snopes should be questioned when her signature is nothing more than a satire.



Kim LaCapria

Kim LaCapria is a New York-based content manager and longtime snopes.com message board participant. Although she was investigated and found to be "probably false" by snopes.com in early 2002, Kim later began writing for the site due to an executive order unilaterally passed by President Obama during a secret, late-night session (without the approval of Congress). Click like and share if you think this is an egregious example of legislative overreach.

www.snopes.com...

If you check that same link you will find her trying to question whether Omar Mateen was still a democrat. Her assesment comes from the evidence that show Mateen having registered as a democrat in 2006, and she claims that his political affiliation was unknown at the time of the Orlando shooting.

But here is the thing. Mateen registered in 2006 as a democrat, but never changed his political affiliation, which would point to the fact that "he was still a democrat". But Snopes's writer LaCapria tries to use the day that Mateen registered as a democrat only as a sign that "he was a democrat in 2006 ". So LaCapria fallacious claim used the absence of evidence that Mateen changed his political affiliation, as proof that his political affiliation was not known at the time of the shooting.

According to The Daily Mail here is the response from David Mikkelson about "the standardized procedure for fact checking that Snopes uses."



...
David Mikkelson told the Dailymail.com that Snopes does not have astandardized procedurefor fact-checkingsince the nature of this material can vary widely.’ He said the processinvolves multiple stages of editorial oversight, so no output is the result of a single persons discretion.

He also said the company has no set requirements for fact-checkers because the variety of the work ‘would be difficult to encompass in any single blanket set of standards.’

‘Accordingly, our editorial staff is drawn from diverse backgrounds; some of them have degrees and/or professional experience in journalism, and some of them don't,’ he added.

LaCapria did not respond to a request for comment.
...

www.dailymail.co.uk... cort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html

This is the type of diatribe that comes from the far left leaning website known as Snopes, yet it is being dubbed as a "fact checker website", which Facebook, and other websites will be using "to combat fake news".

Combating fake news with a website that should be labeled as a "fake news website".




edit on 23-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct link and comment.

edit on 23-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add link.




posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 09:10 PM
link   
S&F

This is interesting...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Snopes = Nopes



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

There's already a thread on this...

And why doesn't anyone see the irony and stupidity of using a MSM site, often called "The Daily Fail", as a source for this??

"Snopes are bad maaaan, daily mail said so"

Moronic.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse



I loose track with what the Liberal controlled press tells me I am supposed to get all worked up about.

Is it a morals clause or is it the money that we now are supposed to care about?



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Daily Mail is a fake news site



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
Daily Mail is a fake news site


Just because you say so, or did Snopes told you so?

The Daily Mail posts a lot of information, and photos to corroborate their story. Not to mention that I also gave the linkedin link to David's new wife in which she states she is a "courtesan" apart from working for Snopes.

www.linkedin.com...



www.linkedin.com...

Note the top right part of her linkedin page in which she describes herself as a "courtesan at Self Employed Independent Peoplesoft Consultant"

Do you know what the word "courtesan" means?

I also gave one example of misinformation used by Snopes in which their main "fact checker" Kimberly LaCapria uses "absence of evidence" as proof for her concocted lie that "Omar Mateen's political affiliation was unknown at the time of the Orlando shooting".

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence




edit on 23-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.

edit on 23-12-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Snopes is hard at work to prove this "FALSE".

Their best investigators are on it.





edit on Dec-23-2016 by xuenchen because: emailscandal



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Snopes is hard a work to prove this "FALSE".

Their best investigators are on it.



Of course they would.


I am trying to find the court filing which according to The Daily Mail is from June 03 2016.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Anyone that would believe snopes at face value is #ing retarded, that being said is it any question facebook would utilize such a source?



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Same can be said for the daily mail....

Yet here we are....



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   
How does this change the accuracy of the work that they've done and do?



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

I never claimed people are smart.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Anyone that would believe snopes at face value is #ing retarded, that being said is it any question facebook would utilize such a source?


Do you have any proof to show that Snopes has intentionally peddled lies? Or is it a case that they report things that you don't personally like?



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu
How does this change the accuracy of the work that they've done and do?

Snopes has been proven inaccurate on many occasions.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Anyone that would believe snopes at face value is #ing retarded, that being said is it any question facebook would utilize such a source?


Do you have any proof to show that Snopes has intentionally peddled lies? Or is it a case that they report things that you don't personally like?

No, I don't care enough about snopes to do such a thing, but here on ATS they have been shown to be a biased, non-factual source of evidence.

So there is that.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

So, you present no evidence.

OK, then this must be a fake news hit piece.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

I'm not the op.

See the post directly below the one I replied too.

super reliable, i mean c'mon, it's snopes.

Enjoy dreaming constantly.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

I don't dream, I live in reality. And in my reality Snopes is reliable.

You can join my reality whenever you're ready!



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join