View in Your Browser

MEMBERS ONLY Digest

14 April 2020 • Issue #8

1 Copy-paste Confusion An old-school method of spreading rises once again.

2 Behind the Snopes Senior Reporter Alex Kasprak answers our questions about his process investigating claims.

3 Since We Last Met We have a number of big updates from Team Snopes.

4 In Case You Missed It The most popular and most important stories on Snopes.com lately.

5 Snopes-worthy Reads Good stories we’ve shared amongst ourselves recently.

Issue #8 edited by Brandon Echter and Doreen Marchionni. 1. Copy-paste can cause confusion, Brandon.

We’re assuming you’ve seen it a lot — a message copied wholesale onto the of your friend or family member, with no attribution, sometimes with a call to copy and paste the message into your own feed to spread the word. In fact, without the design that you see when you use the share button, many times the only way you can tell that it’s a forwarded message is if you see it pop up more than once.

Copy-pasting is decades olds, predating the “share” functions of our modern social platforms. In fact, a retweet was simply adding “RT” to a copied tweet before the functionality was built into the platform in 2009. Copy-pastes have always flourished — perhaps you remember these Facebook and Instagram pasted privacy notices — but now some of the most prominent churning around the internet during the coronavirus disease pandemic are coming from such posts. The notion that COVID-19 is a bioweapon developed in a Chinese lab, for example, spread via copy-pasted posts.

“Copypasta” continues to be a major, old-school source of misinformation. And we’ll keep checking it.

Truthfully yours, Team Snopes

Snopes-tionary

Speak like an insider! Each newsletter, we’ll explain a term or piece of fact- checking lingo that we use on the Snopes team.

Copypasta: It's not something you eat. A portmanteau of “copy” and “paste” (and a wink), copypasta is copy-and- pasted text shared online. Often its content pleads with readers to pass along some warning or advice to help others, when in fact it's just a bit of fiction meant to trick or embarrass the person who shares it. Some examples of shockingly effective copypasta fact-checked by Snopes years ago pop up in our inbox almost every day.

2. Behind The Snopes

Let’s talk about what’s going on with Snopes: the newsroom, the products, the people, and everything and anything that makes Snopes, Snopes. Recently, Senior Reporter Alex Kasprak dove into a copypasta claim that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID- 19, is a bioweapon. We asked him about his research process.

What’s the difference between a story like this, that’s maybe a bit more complicated, and fact-checking a more straightforward claim?

Kasprak: For some reporting or fact-checking, it can be quite simple to get started because you have a single concrete statement or claim that you are looking to confirm or refute. Sadly, that is not the case for a conspiracy about the cause of a viral pandemic. Those lending credence to the that created and accidentally or intentionally released SARS-CoV-2 from a lab in Wuhan are either genuinely misinformed, or are motivated by individuals or groups with agendas that reduce U.S. culpability for the growth of the pandemic, seek to blame China solely for it, or seek to push pseudoscientific claims about science, medicine, and “big pharma.” As such, the specific claims and evidence used to support them vary from source to source.

What’s the first thing you do?

Kasprak: In cases like this, I typically look to see if I can find central pieces of evidence that most of those making conspiratorial claims share. In this case, three bits of evidence appeared in most iterations of the “China released SARS-CoV-2 from a lab conspiracy”: A “scientific study” that concluded that “somebody was entangled with the evolution of 2019-nCoV coronavirus [and] the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan”; a “scientific study” that argued that SARS-CoV-2 had “uncanny” similarities with HIV; and the testimony of a “bioweapons expert,” who has no first-hand knowledge of the virology or the study of disease, published on a pseudoscientific anti-vaccine website.

Where did you really sink your teeth into this story?

Kasprak: Each of those three pieces of evidence are almost comically flawed, so this is where I really like to dig in and attack the claims.

That first “study” that concluded SARS-CoV-2 came out of a Wuhan lab was never published in any journal, and was instead uploaded to a platform to which literally anyone can upload a document. This “study” made the salacious conclusion based on what appears to be a web search for the terms “Wuhan” and “Virology” and a Google Map image showing how close a Wuhan disease control lab is to the wet market once thought to be the origin of the pandemic. It’s a glorified Reddit post that hangs its speculation on the misrepresentation of existing virology research, and it was later deleted by the author himself for its glaring lack of credible evidence.

That second study that claimed to have identified HIV-sequences in the genetics of SARS-CoV-2 was also not a published [scientific] paper, but published on a server designed to offer authors comments and constructive criticism before publication. The paper fueled claims that the virus was “engineered” to inflict maximum damage on humans, but after others demonstrated the conclusion's weak support and erroneous conclusion, the authors retracted their work themselves.

The final bit of “bioweapons expert” testimony, neatly enough, relied on the two debunked bits of evidence above. The interview with law professor Francis Boyle, published on a supplement website, asserted without evidence that “the only reason for these BSL-4 facilities” — i.e., the high-security virology lab in Wuhan — “is the research, development, testing and stockpiling of offensive biological weapons.” This is a claim several scientists — many of whom have colleagues who work with the Wuhan lab — told us was complete bunk. Did this story take more effort than usual to get right?

Kasprak: I originally told my editors I could do this in a day and a half, but it ended up taking me something like four full days of work to hash out. A big part of the problem was assessing the credibility of the “evidence” used in that first paper. Most of the sources cited were either Chinese-language news reports or vague, ultimately incorrect descriptions of existing research. For example, the paper cited the fact that researchers associated with the Wuhan laboratory had, in effect, engineered a version of the SARS-1 coronavirus. An actual look at the paper published, however, shows that all of the lab work was conducted in North Carolina, and is therefore irrelevant as evidence for an accidental release in Wuhan.

The other part of the story that took time to understand was the actual science refuting the notion the SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered virus. The scientific evidence is a bit hard to understand as an outsider at first. In essence the idea of an engineered disease is belied by the fact that scientists, based on what they knew before the outbreak, would have predicted SARS-CoV-2 to be a weakly infectious disease. Both the backbone of the virus and the genetic flourishes that make it so dangerous were unknown to science prior to its emergence. I spoke with researchers involved with this research as well as researchers unaffiliated with this research to make sure I accurately represented the scientific consensus on this point.

Did this investigation take a turn you didn’t expect?

Kasprak: I was most shocked by the weak “evidence” produced in that first study. The authors made a big deal about a Wuhan virology researcher who exposed himself to potential infection from bats while researching the unrelated hantavirus. In fact, that reporting came from a profile that lauded the scientist’s comprehensive fieldwork, which occurred hundreds of miles away from Wuhan in 2010-2012 and included his suffering one bat bite and one bat urination event. I remain shocked that people, including columnists at , still cite a paper arguing that being peed on by a bat nearly a decade ago is evidence that a bioweapon or research specimen was released from a Wuhan lab in 2020. More broadly, our understanding of the origins of the pandemic has now made the release-from-a-lab-theory much simpler to debunk. The evidence was based solely on the geographic proximity of virology-research labs near the wet market theorized to be the origin of the disease. We now know that SARS-CoV-2 infected humans prior to the wet market outbreak, that many of the initial cases had no contact with the wet market, and that the first reported case of COVID-19 was as early as Nov. 17. For a conspiracy theory rooted solely in geography, the fact that the outbreak did not actually originate near that lab should be the final death knell of the conspiracy theory. Sadly, of course, that has not been the case.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity. You can read the full investigation here.

Next time, you’ll hear from another member of the Snopes team about a unique aspect of working here that you might find interesting. Do you want us to cover something specific? Write to us here!

We Want to Hear from You What have you experienced during this coronavirus pandemic? How are you holding up? We want to hear how our readers are living through this crisis.

Tell Us Your Story

3. Since We Last Met

What’s been going on with the Snopes team. Thanks to your generous support, we’ve started expanding our team so that we can check more claims! Snopes is proud to announce we’ve hired Reporter Jessica Lee and Office Assistant Evan Pattison. We’re interviewing more staffers to grow our newsroom, so stay tuned for more announcements.

We’re also proud to announce some promotions: Doreen Marchionni is now Vice President, Editorial, and Vinny Green is Chief Operations Officer. Email them your congrats!

Snopes has been in the news quite a bit lately. Senior Reporter Alex Kasprak recently appeared on BBC’s Trending and the Easy Prey podcast, and Vinny Green has been interviewed by Slate, the San Diego Union Tribune, and more.

And one last update on your swag orders — most of them have shipped! If you’ve ordered a swag box as part of your membership, it should be on its way. You can read more in the “Updates” tab on the Founding Members project. And if you’ve already received your order, show it off! Reply to this email with pictures of you and your new Snopes gear.

A New Facebook Scam A months-long Snopes investigation has revealed a network of foreign-run, "patriotic" Facebook pages taking aim at Americans terrified of COVID-19.

Read the Investigation

4. In Case You Missed It

The latest news and fact checks on Snopes.com. U.S. President ’s unrepentant boosterism of the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment despite experts’ calls for more testing has given rise to speculation that he stands to profit from its widespread use. Does Trump own stake in hydroxychloroquine manufacture? Snopes investigated.

Many U.S. readers have asked us the same question these past few weeks: Will my coronavirus stimulus check count against my 2020 tax refund if I have one coming? We checked the wording of the legislation, and in short, it shouldn’t affect anyone’s federal refund. Read the in-depth explanation here.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been compared to another worldwide disease outbreak: the so-called “Spanish flu” of 1918, in which an estimated 40 million people died. It was called the “Spanish flu” because it was once thought to have originated in Spain, but scientists now say that was not, in fact, the case. It’s a longstanding tradition here at Snopes to keep a running list of noteworthy pranks every April 1. Distracted though we were by world events this time around, we did manage to quickly check some of the April Fools’ pranks of 2020.

Have a story tip? Send it here!

Mental Health Break Team Snopes investigates some grim and depressing claims, so we know how important it is to your mental health to see something silly, funny, or just plain heartwarming. Here are some links that made us smile.

Swearing in the Time of Coronavirus - Nancy Friedman, Strong Language

Hawks’ Forbidden Love Results in a Rare Hybrid - Jake Buehler, Gizmodo

Cat vs. Dog - Twitter

5. Snopes-worthy Reads

What Team Snopes is reading across the web.

In a Pandemic, What is Essential Journalism? Alexandria Neason, Columbia Journalism Review

5G Conspiracy Theorists are Using Fears about the Coronavirus to Make Money Ryan Broderick, Buzzfeed News

Fox News is Preparing to Be Sued Over Coronavirus Misinformation Caleb Ecarma, Vanity Fair

How Misinformation About the U.S. Needing ‘1 Million Ventilators’ Spread Jeryl Bier, The Dispatch

Have any recommended reads? Submit them here.

The Pets of Snopes It’s true: The Snopes “team” was once just two people and a cat. Twenty- five years later, we have more humans and more cats (and even some dogs) than at our once-humble beginnings. We want you to meet our furry, fact-finding friends because, well, who doesn’t love a cute animal picture? Meet one of the newest Snopes pets, Herman! Hanging out with newly hired Reporter Jessica Lee in Minnesota, this Manx always has a permanent black “tie” on his white belly, making Lee feel constantly underdressed. She writes, “Herman is a dapper, eggplant-shaped alien who is either napping in the sun or trying to kill me.”

Thanks for reading this edition of the Snopes Digest. We’ll be releasing the newsletter every two weeks, so please add this email address to your white list and keep an eye out on April 14 for the next issue.

You can read the previous issue here.

Have feedback about this newsletter you want to share with us? Just email us.

Thank you for being a Snopes member.

Manage Preferences Need to update your email address or how often you get Snopes in your inbox? You can do that by managing your email preferences Manage Your Preferences

Unsubscribe You can unsubscribe from all Snopes emails by clicking the link below. Please note, this includes from both paid and free newsletters. Unsubscribe from Everything

Snopes Media Group Inc. 864 Grand Ave #256 San Diego, CA 92109

© 1994 - 2020 by Snopes Media Group Inc. This material may not be reproduced without permission.

Snopes and the Snopes.com logo are registered service marks of Snopes Media Group Inc.