Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Regarding rice, if your serving is sufficiently rancid to make you sick, then the bag is bad.

And yet, you were able to read on Snopes why they flagged something as "partially true", and you were able to make an informed decision.

When someone says "Hillary Clinton is using private email servers and unauthorized phones," that's technically true, and it sounds really, very bad. But when you learn that previous officials, like Colin Powell, and current officials, like members of the Trump family, did the same thing, then it provides more context, and it makes you wonder just how egregious the original charge is.

The point is, "technically true" things are often intentionally misleading; the fact that something is "technically true" should arouse more suspicion than trust.

I hear you calling out fact checkers that provide insight into why something is flagged true or false, but I don't hear you calling out officials that make misleading "technically true" statements, or totally false statements. What's up with that? Are fact checkers really the root of this problem, or are they a symptom?




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: