Is snopes.com Safe?

Supposably fact check stories but I've seen facts being omitted in several cases which in turns ends-up with conclusions which are contrary to what the facts tell us. The only way to fact check stories is to research the different point of views and claims and use your critical thinking. Never rely on one unique source such as Snopes.com. Fact-checkers aren't immune to fact-checking.

One of the biggest stories of the year, pizza gate, is proven "wrong" by such "reputable sources" as the same newspaper twice, and Vice, a liberal tv and news site, and another but different news paper under the same name as the double source. Shows how "reputable" this trash is today. Also has no comment section even though it would be a boon for research. Very odd.

I used to use Snopes a lot, they were a good place to go to find out whether or not something was the truth. However, I noticed lately that they have turned from posting the truth to simply being a bias left wing mouthpiece. I'm sorry, but I cannot back a site that is supposed to be showing people the truth of all matters, and yet is so bias and so strongly left leaning. If you want to post the truth, post the truth but don't sit there and use your pedestal to start trying to throw your weight around posting pure opinions and straying from fact. That was a mistake.

This website is complete left wing propaganda. It's only purpose is to provide cloud cover for the left because it is a well known fact that left wingers only look for confirmation of their beliefs & will look no further once they have located it. Snopes is owned & operated by a left leaning couple who distort the facts to paint their candidates in a positive light while painting right wingers in a negative light despite all of the evidence. This web site is Bull$}{!+.

Unreliable at best. I used to a use snopes to fact check everything until a couple of years ago. I agree with the editor at 'Get Off The Bs who said, in reference to the Billy Bush story, "We have had two different opposing issues come up with this particular article. One was written by *****. I had a lot of respect for Snopes.com at one time. The husband and wife who published that blog published it for the same reason we do–to tell people what the mainstream media for some reason refuses to print. Unfortunately, the people at Snopes became greedy and allowed their original intentions to become skewed, spewing whatever garbage they think will draw people to their paid advertising."

***** has repeatedly been shown to be biased (as is every site with "facts"); so be sure to take their opinions with a hefty grain of salt. There are obvious instances of their fact checking to be honest and helpful, but one should realize that anything of a political or religious nature is highly influenced by their opinions.

Appalling misinformation.  On the child rape case in Twin Falls, Idaho, they claimed it was not a rape, despite the fact that videotape evidence prove that the child was orally raped and her mouth was urinated into.  Anal penetration was also attempted.  This was a horrific act of violence by three older refugee boys against a five year old girl.  Snopes is unreliable.  They spew out ultra liberal propaganda and distort the truth to do so.

I haven't seen any nudity on Snopes; it's very light on pictures overall. But many pages mention politics, religion, crime, sex, pornography, and violence, some of it gruesome. Because Snopes is about analyzing distortions and lies, its material tends toward the controversial and disturbing more than, say, NBC News. Parents should be correspondingly cautious about their children using Snopes.

I have read so many anti-thesit pro atheist propoganda on this website that it turns my stomach. They are quick to investigate each claim and dismiss content as that of hoax based on very little evidense. A quick Google search for snopesing snopes will show a fair amount of evidense to back these claims. I feel that could even be potentially damaging to the reputation of factual websites under certain circumstances. At one point this was a good website and the admins DID thoroughly investigate all claims, but these days not so much. While some of their reports are accurate and can be a good recourse, remember to do your own study before bying their reports at face value. This website looks like it was built in the 1990's and stayed that way.. But the real factor is that it has a bunch of misleading information and content that has not been researched. You cannot trust everything they publish. I learned that the hard way. Some of the 'myth busts' are myths. Some of the so-called 'studies' they use as sources are from people who have been paid to slant the results. That's not science. Rated yellow as "opinions, religion, politics." Question everything they call 'fact'. After finding out that this site is run by 2 dip shits who dont even do any actual research ,, nothing they say can be trusted Very simple. If Snopes MUST give the truth, they slant it towards their "Leftist, Progressive, Democrat, Socialist" views. Case in point: Obama's crotch salute during the National Anthem: When forced to admit the truth, Snopes decides to "add" that National Anthem protocol is so old that it is okay as long as one is respectful - THE IS ZERO agreement on this among any who fought for that flag or that National Anthem. And a crotch salute is hardly respectful. Bottom line: Obama has ZERO respect or love of the United States, but Snopes would have you believe that his behavior is just respectful in a different way.

Snopes is entirely run by a husband and wife doing research on their own. It is run by David and Barbara Mikkelson, living in a Los Angeles suburb. I find things that are flatly wrong. So, I no longer consider this the "gold standard" of proof that something is or isn't true.

As much as some like to hate on Snopes as being biased towards the Left, they seem to debunk just as much nonsense about the Right. Just go through their politics page and see for yourself. They've frequently been debunking rumours about Trump who at the time of posting seems to make up the majority of the political feed. Claims of them having been paid off are all unsubstantiated and as much as people like to say they have got things wrong it is very rare to see anyone actually produce an example. Snopes is very good at listing the sources they've used to come to their conclusions. It is all open so you can check everything for yourself and see if it matches up. It's still good to use critical thinking even on such a trusted source. I've never found them to be off the mark however. Listed as not being particularly suitable for kids as there's nothing on here a child would be after and some of the things they debunk would not be considered child friendly.

To support their positions, this site often states as fact(s), things which are themselves questionable as being true or not. Definitely biased to the left. As for suitability for children, that would depend on their maturity and ability to question fact from opinion.