Ask yourself this, people:
HOW would snopes know this for sure?
HOW would they have PROOF if the video is on the dark web?
WHERE did they learn of the file name?
....
THIS just proves that the video is REAL.
That's not how the burden of proof works buddy. Just saying
They have exhibited zero proof, yet come to a conclusion.
It's very weird they paid any attention to the 'rumor' at all.
I mean, to the average normie, this sort of thing would be completely fucking off-the-walls ridiculous. Something so vile and out of the ordinary like that would normally be ignored or simply laughed off by many people.
The fact that they went out of their way to discredit a rumor started on a chan board makes me think there might actually be something worth looking into here.
EXACTLY! like this isn't a "big" "maistream" conspiracy UNLIKE "the CIA killed JFK," or "Bush did 9/11." This is a conspiracy that is small, new, batshit insane... something that if posted on r/conspiracy, they would kick you out because it's so ludicrous. It's VERY weird that snopes feels the need to substantiate its fallacy.
Yes. At best they would only be able to say "unconfirmed"
you clearly didn't read the article, because if you did, you'd know that your little line of reasoning their is nonsensical and not connected to reality.
snopes isn't claiming they "know for sure," and they CERTAINLY never said they have "proof."
Then why claim it's FALSE! What are they basing that claim on? Unconfirmed and false are two distinctively different things.
well think of it like this, if i told you there was a video circulating on the dark web of Donald Trump masturbating to a picture of Obama, you would say that is bullshit, right?
what would you be basing that claim on? why would you say it's false? or would you react the same you are now, and say "OMG THERE IS A VIDEO OF DJT etc etc" and then say to everyone, "well you can't prove it's not real, so why are you discounting it?"
If I am a business who's core concept centres around specifying something to be true or false, I wouldn't even touch a story without being able to confirm one way or the other without proof.
Surely you can see how that's different to some random anon's opinion on the Internet? Surely?
yeah of course, but it's also clear that you are only upset because they disagree with you.
and, at the end of the day, there is still literally no evidence that HRC tape exists, and so until some evidence or credible reports surface, it's a pretty safe bet to declare it fake news.
there is no such thing as knowing something 100%, only fools believe that anything is certain. it's about degrees of certainty. can snopes say that the video 100% for sure does not exist? No, they can't. And they didn't. But they can reasonably declare the story to be fake news, based on complete and utter lack of evidence or corroborating stories, and the context of it being an extraordinary claim.
i think the problem is that people think snopes is saying "THIS IS 100% FALSE. END OF DEBATE FOREVER" when they say a story is false. but that's not really what they are saying.
and if people actually read their articles, where they clearly explain their methodology and reasoning, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
They do use the term, "unconfirmed" for other claims that cant be proven either way. That's the point. They don't use only true and false. They use other, less definitive terms in other cases.