Snopes.com Reviews 36

TrustScore 1.5 out of 5

1.7

While we don't verify specific claims because reviewers' opinions are their own, we may label reviews as "Verified" when we can confirm a business interaction took place. Read more

To protect platform integrity, every review on our platform—verified or not—is screened by our 24/7 automated software. This technology is designed to identify and remove content that breaches our guidelines, including reviews that are not based on a genuine experience. We recognise we may not catch everything, and you can flag anything you think we may have missed. Read more

See what reviewers are saying

Rated 1 out of 5 stars

The proof is in how they dealt with Covid and the Hunter Biden laptop "conspiracy theory" that the left-wing media mislead people with and how they heavily censored the content, among other things.... See more

Rated 1 out of 5 stars

This company can be proud in its part, in absolute zero honesty to anything shown in media and the news. It's a far left 'fact checker', one of the grim annoyances to appear in the Covid era as news o... See more

Rated 5 out of 5 stars

Brilliant fact checking website. They provide links to their sources and reference relevant businesses or institutions so that you may follow up on their research yourself.

Rated 1 out of 5 stars

I've only looked at one snopes "fact" which was very misleading claiming that the queen was a mechanic. It is one of the most often repeated lies about the monarch. The reality is that she "played a... See more

Company details

  1. News Service
  2. Blogger

Information provided by various external sources

Snopes /snoʊps/, formerly known as the Urban Legends Reference Pages, claims to be one of the first online fact-checking websites.


Contact info

1.7

Bad

TrustScore 1.5 out of 5

36 reviews

5-star
4-star
3-star
2-star
1-star

How this company uses Trustpilot

See how their reviews and ratings are sourced, scored, and moderated.

Companies on Trustpilot aren't allowed to offer incentives or pay to hide reviews. Reviews are the opinions of individual users and not of Trustpilot. Read more

Rated 1 out of 5 stars

The fact checking system is not a true fact checking system

The fact checking system is, by logical and judicial standards, ineffective in checking the facts that is issuing judgement in regards to; hence, acting as a passive apparatus of disseminating public information that is seen as a threat to the current status quo. Their Terms and Conditions, and as well the manner of processing the fact checking cases, indicates deep bias in regards to the true validity information that is processed, implying a lack of efficiency in attaining its declared purpose. This system has issued conclusions based on the declarations of incriminated parties, without actually judging the matter separately or seeking alternative possibilities of validating different potential conclusions.

18 July 2025
Unprompted review
Rated 1 out of 5 stars

Too politically biased and unreliable

The proof is in how they dealt with Covid and the Hunter Biden laptop "conspiracy theory" that the left-wing media mislead people with and how they heavily censored the content, among other things.

I'm 100% convinced without a shadow of a doubt that they are having their strings pulled by the powers that be with their "fact checkers" label that they falsely claim. That term is so overused anyway it longer means anything thanks to corrupt organizations like this.

12 February 2025
Unprompted review
Rated 1 out of 5 stars

it's too biased for fact-checking supernatural, in particular

some of it's biases are: it insists everything paranormal and supernatural aren't real(when they're explained as something other than mundane hoaxes) regardless of their authenticity

and they're make Big Tech's fact-checkers can't have Alien invasion as next 9/11 for "taking away realism" among others

18 December 2024
Unprompted review
Rated 1 out of 5 stars

During the scamdemic my friend posted…

During the scamdemic my friend posted videos everything was factual. They said it was all nonsense. Terrible organisation. My friend even reached out to show them and was in contact with other journalists who behaved similarly. No integrity whatso ever snopes

12 November 2024
Unprompted review
Rated 1 out of 5 stars

The queen was never a mechanic

I've only looked at one snopes "fact" which was very misleading claiming that the queen was a mechanic. It is one of the most often repeated lies about the monarch. The reality is that she "played at being a mechanic and van driver" for the purposes of a newsreel film to serve as propaganda for the war effort.

30 August 2022
Unprompted review
Rated 1 out of 5 stars

They often rephrase

They often rephrase, or change the details of a claim made by another, just so they can announce their false version 'FAKE'. They are heavily biased politically and ideologically and so not what they pretend to be. SNOPES = FAKE

4 February 2022
Unprompted review
Rated 1 out of 5 stars

Snopes are misinformation…

Snopes are misinformation superspreaders who target people to protect the interests of those who sponsor them. Go elsewhere for your fact checking.

4 December 2021
Unprompted review

Is this your company?

Claim your profile to access Trustpilot’s free business tools and connect with customers.

Get free account

The Trustpilot Experience

Anyone can write a Trustpilot review. People who write reviews have ownership to edit or delete them at any time, and they’ll be displayed as long as an account is active.

Companies can ask for reviews via automatic invitations. Labeled Verified, they’re about genuine experiences.

Learn more about other kinds of reviews.

We use dedicated people and clever technology to safeguard our platform. Find out how we combat fake reviews.

Learn about Trustpilot’s review process.

Here are 8 tips for writing great reviews.

Verification can help ensure real people are writing the reviews you read on Trustpilot.

Offering incentives for reviews or asking for them selectively can bias the TrustScore, which goes against our guidelines.

Take a closer look