Snopes might shut down.

a reply to: ReadingOne

OK, I am not upset.

Now let me be clear and reiterate my 2nd post .

I was talking about opinions on a site.
I was not thinking about facts. This insistence I meant something I didn't is simply trolling.
Telling me I meant one thing, is not going to make it so no matter how many times people type it.
Ok?

Should I reiterate this a 5th time?

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
There's a banner on the top of their website.

Let us all pause a moment to shed a tear for one of ATS' least-favorite websites:

.......

OK, that's long enough. Looks like they somehow lost control of their website, and can't afford the legal bills to fight the matter.

LOL....Snopes has sucked for a while...ever since they got political.

Anywho...here is some more info on the why.

Seems the founders wife, no ex, sold her 50% share to the hosting company and screwed him....good for her!



Lawsuit Filing

Full Story

Bardav signed over a share of Snopes’ revenue to Proper Media in exchange for web services such as management of its back-end advertising platform, according to the cross-complaint. Proper Media alleges in its original complaint, which was filed in early May, that it still has a valid, written contract that the company upheld until Bardav withheld the "accounts, tools and data" it needed to manage Snopes' operations. The complaint alleges that Mikkelson himself breached the agreement by canceling it.

A representative from Proper Media, which also partners with Raw Story and The Daily Dot, and the company's attorney, did not respond to messages seeking comment. Bardav's lawyer did not respond to messages seeking comment.

The legal fracas between Bardav and Proper Media is complicated by the fact that Mikkelson's ex-wife, Barbara, sold her 50 percent interest equity in the company to Proper Media in July 2016, according to the original complaint. The deal was structured as a sale to the media company's five individual shareholders.

"Mikkelson was unhappy that Barbara maintained ownership of half of what he always considered to be his company after the divorce," the complaint reads. "Thus, after Proper Media’s purchase of Barbara’s share, Mikkelson sought to finally gain control of Bardav by aligning and conspiring with (Vincent) Green."

Green, who was among Proper Media's five-person management staff, then "conspired" with Mikkelson to take control of Bardav by combining their interests in the company, according to the complaint. However, Bardav's cross-complaint makes no mention of that alleged effort.

So it would appear their "about us" on their web page is full of crap based on the legal status of the claim. 50% of it is now owned by Proper Media according to court filed docs.

Bardav is the parent company to Snopes and is the company the founder of Snopes set up as the holding company.

Anywho....good riddance....once they started hiring liberal political hacks to do their fact checking they went downhill...hopefully they are sunk.

I think I called it at the beginning of the year, or perhaps December of last year.

Snopes will go under and Zuckerburg will buy them out.

I mean just go to their staff page and then Google them....its a lefty love fest. Check out their tweets and ideals....all anti Trump....their managing editor is one of the most biased people you could ever hope to meet....or hope to not meet.

Yet people will believe snopes....LOL!

Snopes Staff

a reply to: zazzafrazz

I am sorry to see that you are still upset to the point that you are now accusing me of trolling. I'll just leave you to it, your feelings and your anger is not my responsibility to fix, thankfully.

Moving on here, you do what you want.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Snarl

Perhaps I am missing something. What numbers are not adding up?

1. Look at how much they say they've collected.
2. Divide that by the number of donors.
3. See what the average donation would have to be to have raised that amount of money.
4. Scroll.

Thank you OP and everyone for letting us know that Snopes need help.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Snarl

Perhaps I am missing something. What numbers are not adding up?

1. Look at how much they say they've collected.
2. Divide that by the number of donors.
3. See what the average donation would have to be to have raised that amount of money.
4. Scroll.

Ok. The average is just under $30 at this time. Scrolling through the recent donations indicates that should be about right.

I don't see anything wrong.

originally posted by: introvert
I don't see anything wrong.

I consider it a Tax on Liberals ... so I don't see anything wrong either.

However, there are a ton of five and ten dollar donations. The few big ones would hardly make a difference. You've got 22 @ or above $500. In about another 50 high donations you drop down to a measly hundred bucks.

Where's the $100K seed donation? LOL

a reply to: Snarl

However, there are a ton of five and ten dollar donations. The few big ones would hardly make a difference. You've got 22 @ or above $500. In about another 50 high donations you drop down to a measly hundred bucks. Where's the $100K seed donation? LOL

Perhaps you do not understand how averages work and how a few larger numbers can drive averages higher. But a $30 average is not really that high.

Soooooooo.....

It's BASICALLY:

Snopes sucks because they say thngs I don't want to hear!

Am I getting the gist

Maybe the owner needs to pay for more hookers so he can dump his current hooker.
That's where the donations will be going.
Good riddance if it folds - most partisan site on the web.
Maybe the Clinton Foundation will donate.

a reply to: DanteGaland

Am I getting the gist

In some cases, a gist simply does not exist.

This is one of those cases.

You either understand it completely, or you've misunderstood everything.

There is no 'gist' involved. Snopes was very useful for some older urban legend/conspiracy related topics many many years ago.

And regardless of who I support politically, Snopes made a suicidal decision when they tried to institutionalize themselves as the end all be all, intrinsic, internet fact-checking hub.

It didn't work.

a reply to: DanteGaland

Not for me. I sent Snopes material information that discredited a key piece of *cough* evidence they used as support, and they literally ignored me and certainly never updated their article to include it.

Yet, somehow they think they should tout a strict adherence to certain factchecking principles: Link

Like these principles are somehow evidence that Snopes is a genuine, reliable, exhaustive, unbiased, factual resource (although, TBH, the so-called principles don't really require a purported factchecker to disclose certain facts):

A COMMITMENT TO NONPARTISANSHIP AND FAIRNESS
We fact-check claims using the same standard for every fact check. We do not concentrate our fact-checking on any one side. We follow the same process for every fact check and let the evidence dictate our conclusions. We do not advocate or take policy positions on the issues we fact-check.

A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF SOURCES
We want our readers to be able to verify our findings themselves. We provide all sources in enough detail that readers can replicate our work, except in cases where a source’s personal security could be compromised. In such cases, we provide as much detail as possible.

A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF FUNDING & ORGANIZATION
We are transparent about our funding sources. If we accept funding from other organizations, we ensure that funders have no influence over the conclusions we reach in our reports. We detail the professional background of all key figures in our organization and explain our organizational structure and legal status. We clearly indicate a way for readers to communicate with us.

A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF METHODOLOGY
We explain the methodology we use to select, research, write, edit, publish and correct our fact checks. We encourage readers to send us claims to fact-check and are transparent on why and how we fact-check.

A COMMITMENT TO OPEN AND HONEST CORRECTIONS
We publish our corrections policy and follow it scrupulously. We correct clearly and transparently in line with our corrections policy, seeking so far as possible to ensure that readers see the corrected version.

The popular internet watchdog/fatchecking sites are so rotten, worthless, and given they owe a real duty to the public, they are criminally fraudulent by taking in donations.

So...that's why I am a 'hater' when it comes to Snopes or Factcheck.org. They are criminal enterprises.

As soon as they started pointing out that Trump tells a lot of lies, a bunch of people really started hating them.

originally posted by: Painterz
As soon as they started pointing out that Trump tells a lot of lies, a bunch of people really started hating them.

Source?

originally posted by: DanteGaland
Soooooooo.....

It's BASICALLY:

Snopes sucks because they say thngs I don't want to hear!

Am I getting the gist

Sure...you can go get your gist there all week long....it will be served on the same platter as the rest of your gist earlier in the week.

If you bother to look at the menu and the chef that prepares your gist, you may get tired of eating bologna 3 times a day. If you're a typical consumer of gist and need your Kardashian ham served with a slice of Clinton bread and a side of mashed government then you are at the right place....grab your Piccadilly serving tray and dig in! It's an all you can eat buffet at this point.

And then there's reality.....

originally posted by: introvert
Perhaps you do not understand how averages work and how a few larger numbers can drive averages higher. But a $30 average is not really that high.

I admit it. I was wrong. I paid for it by doing the actual math.

That's the second time I've been wrong.

Surely their fellow gatekeeper of fact, Face-aches very own Billionaire founder Mr. Suckaturd, will chip in with a few dollars?

I love how some people say "they were good before they got into politics"... basically they didn't like them exposing Trumps lies.