
Snopes asks community for donations - danso
http://www.snopes.com/save-snopes/
======
taftster
There is more to this than just "Save Snopes". From a linked article:

> "The legal fracas between Bardav [Snopes parent company] and Proper Media
> [hosting company] 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." [1]

I would have been inclined to donate, but there's obviously something more
going on that indicates problematic life or business choices by multiple
parties, which makes me feel less sympathetic.

[1] [https://www.poynter.org/2017/snopes-is-locked-in-a-legal-
bat...](https://www.poynter.org/2017/snopes-is-locked-in-a-legal-battle-for-
control-of-its-website/465615/)

~~~
atarian
Wow, this is very interesting. Are spouses in the US entitled to shares in
your company after a divorce?

~~~
adventured
Depends on the state, among other things.

In community property states (eg California), value gained during the marriage
is typically treated as shared unless there's another contract.

A recent famous case, involving the US oil tycoon Harold Hamm, in which the
circumstances occurred in Oklahoma (not a community property state), ended
with his wife getting a billion dollar settlement. He was already rich before
marrying her and already owned his position in the company in question,
however he didn't get a prenuptial agreement. She argued successfully that her
role in the marriage was a critical assist to his ability to focus on building
up the oil company.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/business/harold-hamm-
okla...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/business/harold-hamm-oklahoma-
oilman-billion-dollar-divorce.html)

~~~
ballenf
Inheritance is also usually exempted in most states from being shared. Unless
it becomes too intertwined in the couple's holdings overall.

------
brickmort
I've grown weary of websites posing as bastions of truth that will determine
whether it's true or false. It's a fun concept when it covers things like
subliminal messages in Disney movies, but when it starts becoming the go-to
destination for un-answerable or hotly debated political issues, it gets ugly
and I'd rather not support it.

The CEO of Snopes himself ended up in a scandal last year
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-
dai...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-
snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/). Who can we trust to fact-
check those claims? Who's fact-checking the fact-checkers?

~~~
MartinCron
Seems pretty nihilistic, doesn't it? Even when things are hotly debated,
objective reality continues to exist, and we owe it to ourselves to strive to
understand and acknowledge facts.

~~~
oh_sigh
Perhaps topics being hotly debated indicates that there is generally no easy
answer one way or the other.

~~~
sigmar
>Perhaps topics being hotly debated indicates that there is generally no easy
answer one way or the other.

Questions that are difficult to answer are debated by many, but not all
questions that are debated by many are difficult to answer. For example- Earth
is not flat.

~~~
oh_sigh
I agree - I intended to word my statement in a way that didn't imply that
debate meant that truth was hard to find, just that debate may point to the
fact that the truth is hard to find.

------
0xffff2
I find the why much more interesting than the actual ask here.

>We had previously contracted with an outside vendor to provide certain
services for Snopes.com. That contractual relationship ended earlier this
year, but the vendor will not acknowledge the change in contractual status and
continues to essentially hold the Snopes.com web site hostage.

Does anyone know what this means in this case? It seems quite careless to me
for the owners of a site as significant as Snopes to turn over control of
their domain to someone they don't trust absolutely.

~~~
cortesoft
You kind of HAVE to turn over control; you have to contract with SOMEONE to
buy a domain name, you have to contract with SOMEONE to have a datacenter.

~~~
kuschku
Not really. You can join most cooperative NICs (such as DENIC), and you can
colo or run your own datacenters, and own your own IP blocks.

~~~
cortesoft
If you colo, a nefarious colo owner could hold your gear hostage. Even running
your own datacenter, you probably have a landlord.

My only point is that all businesses require trusting some other business to
not be nefarious.

~~~
kuschku
They can hold my gear hostage, but not my site. I'll have offsite backups and
can quickly switch to another provider.

------
iamben
I posted this a few moments ago, but adding to this in case it rises to the
top (and especially as it's not very visible on the page) --

Donate link:
[https://www.gofundme.com/savesnopes](https://www.gofundme.com/savesnopes)

~~~
danso
FWIW, your submission was listed as [dead] to me when I submitted this link.
I'm assuming HN's blacklist includes gofundme.com, though someone has since
vouched for your submission and made it un-[dead]

~~~
striking
To add to this: if something is wrongfully dead, please email the mods too.
Otherwise they probably will overlook it.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Email the mods? How? Didn't even know there was a list of mods nevermind email
addresses??

~~~
danso
From the Guidelines page (which is one of the small footer links on HN's
homepage):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

> _Please don 't post on HN to ask or tell us something (e.g. to ask us
> questions about Y Combinator, or to ask or complain about moderation). If
> you want to say something to us, please send it to hn@ycombinator.com._

------
chippy
Snopes is being sued by the "vendor" (shareholders of which own 50% of
Snopes). Its more complicated than OPs blog post.

[https://www.courthousenews.com/fact-checker-snopes-owners-
ac...](https://www.courthousenews.com/fact-checker-snopes-owners-accused-
corporate-subterfuge/)

------
Overtonwindow
I don't trust Snopes. I can't quite put my finger on it, maybe it's working
with Facebook, maybe it's the whole fake news fiasco, but something just
doesn't feel right.

~~~
matthewmarkus
You're right not to trust them.

To wit: [http://www.snopes.com/3d-printed-rhino-horn-
developed/](http://www.snopes.com/3d-printed-rhino-horn-developed/)

They run through a litany of NGO complaints, basically presenting one side of
the debate. However, as early as January of 2016, I had addressed many of
those complaints elsewhere [1]. By April of 2016, a respected anti-wildlife
trafficking NGO even declared that "it would be rash to rule out the
possibility that trade in synthetic rhinoceros horn could play a role in
future conservation strategies [2]." Things have only improved from there [3].
Yet, "what's controversial" turns into "what's false" on Snopes. After seeing
how the sausage is made, there is no way I'll ever trust them.

[1] [https://sosv.com/why-pembient-is-confident-in-synthetic-
rhin...](https://sosv.com/why-pembient-is-confident-in-synthetic-rhino-horn/)

[2] [http://www.traffic.org/traffic-
bulletin/traffic_pub_bulletin...](http://www.traffic.org/traffic-
bulletin/traffic_pub_bulletin_28_1.pdf)

[3]
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.003](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.003)

~~~
hitekker
Disclaimer: This commenter is a CEO of a firm that is in conflict with Snopes.
See: [https://twitter.com/Pembient](https://twitter.com/Pembient)

In the future, I would recommend disclaiming potential bias through your
profile or on the comment itself. Otherwise, commenters who skimm may be
misled and commenters who read may question your authenticity.

~~~
matthewmarkus
I thought I made it pretty clear in the comment that I had an iron in the
fire. Apologies to those who missed that point.

Please note that my conflict is not with Snopes, it is with the NGOs and their
statements, which Snopes chose to solely feature.

------
burkaman
More information on the situation here: [https://www.poynter.org/2017/snopes-
is-locked-in-a-legal-bat...](https://www.poynter.org/2017/snopes-is-locked-in-
a-legal-battle-for-control-of-its-website/465615/)

~~~
onestone
And here from TechCrunch: [https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/24/snopes-seeks-
crowdfunding-...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/24/snopes-seeks-crowdfunding-
in-ownership-battle/)

------
Grue3
Snopes has been terrible since Barbara Mikkelson left. Who even cares about
them anymore?

~~~
TallGuyShort
I'm still almost always successful in finding a well-documented article I can
share debunking garbage when I see it on social media and other people are
just sharing "in case". Is there a good alternative?

~~~
Sleeep
Skeptics Stack Exchange has some good content (and also some not so good
content)

There's content there about Snopes research:
[https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2094/is-a-
write...](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2094/is-a-writer-named-
lisa-holst-responsible-for-the-belief-that-everyone-eats-eight)

------
justin66
How much do I have to pay to keep them from trying to be an online news outlet
in addition to doing their core mission?

------
pbhjpbhj
The poynter.org link makes it clear that things aren't clear.

Who, for example, is "the Snopes team" \- like actual team people who can be
traced and held to account for the money being asked for?

Who are the lawyers, what money do they need, what's the nature of the legal
claim, who is the claim against.

Why can't they follow procedure with the registry to (re)gain control of the
domain. How can they have, as claimed in the OP, editorial control of the site
but not any other control; that makes no sense to me.

The whole thing stinks: It sounds from Poynter.org as if Mikkelson has a
partial stake in the company he's seeking to sue.

What sort of money does it take to run Snopes, what are the alleged withheld
funds?

Overall to me it doesn't sound, somewhat ironically, as if a completely
truthful and reasonably full disclosure of the situation is begin made.

------
mrfusion
Deal for you, snopes. You let me copy your text. I'll consider a donation.

------
jonny_eh
I wonder why they don't provide a link to actually give them money.

~~~
AndrewWarner
Good question. The link goes to a blog post, which has a hard-to-spot link to
their Go Fund Me page.

~~~
jonny_eh
I looked for it and didn't see it. I'm either blind or it's really hard-to-
spot.

~~~
coldpie
I think you may be blind, mate ;) There's a big, black DONATE button near the
bottom of the article.

------
RickJWagner
Snopes isn't worth saving. It's degenerated into a politically biased opinion
site.

Maybe they can find some deep-pockets political donors to save them.

~~~
williamle8300
I've read somewhere that the couple who initially started Snopes are
unabashedly left-wing

~~~
Sleeep
Is this FUD?

One of the Mikkelsons was registered Republican then turned independent and
the other is Canadian thus unable to vote.

[http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/](http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/)

------
mattnewton
Can anyone unmask this vendor? If their side of the story is correct, it would
be enough for any other potential clients to blacklist them unless this is
resolved immediately. I'm guessing the situation is more complex?

~~~
burkaman
It's more complex: [https://www.poynter.org/2017/snopes-is-locked-in-a-legal-
bat...](https://www.poynter.org/2017/snopes-is-locked-in-a-legal-battle-for-
control-of-its-website/465615/)

~~~
jonny_eh
"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."

So it's a divorce fight. Yuck.

------
seangrogg
The first thing I did after reading this was go to Snopes to see if it was a
hoax.

------
udkl
I haven't heard of snopes.com before and am having a hard time figuring it
out.

Is it like a Digg clone for 'urban legends' ? What makes it popular ?

Also, what is the reason people would want to donate? What value does it
provide?

~~~
qohen
_I haven 't heard of snopes.com before_

From
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com)

 _Snopes.com /ˈsnoʊps/, also known as the Urban Legends Reference Pages, is a
website covering urban legends, Internet rumors, e-mail forwards, and other
stories of unknown or questionable origin.[4] It is a well-known resource for
validating and debunking such stories in American popular culture,[5]
receiving 300,000 visits a day as of 2010.

Snopes.com was created by Barbara and David Mikkelson, a California couple who
met in the alt.folklore.urban newsgroup. The site is organized by topic and
includes a message board where stories and pictures of questionable veracity
may be posted._

------
bhouston
Create a new website and have Google and Facebook do redirects to it for most
of their direct links. Therealsnopes.com?

~~~
0xffff2
>have Google and Facebook do redirects to it for most of their direct links

Is that actually a thing that either site will do? Especially considering that
there appears to be an ongoing legal dispute involving the domain?

------
dan1234
This is #1 reason why you shouldn't let 3rd parties "look after" your DNS or
domain…

------
bhouston
What company is holding them hostage?

~~~
burkaman
Allegedly, Proper Media. It's complicated
[https://www.poynter.org/2017/snopes-is-locked-in-a-legal-
bat...](https://www.poynter.org/2017/snopes-is-locked-in-a-legal-battle-for-
control-of-its-website/465615/)

~~~
bhouston
The key is that Proper Media is withholding revenue as a bargaining chip.
Pretty shitty.

------
macinjosh
Where do I go to donate to not save Snopes?

------
cronjobber
For entertainment purposes only:

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-
fac...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fact-checker-
arbitrate-fake-news-accused-defrauding-website-pay-prostitutes-staff-includes-
escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html)

~~~
e40
Please, never give that site traffic!

~~~
dan1234
It doesn't reflect my views in the slightest, but it's already pretty popular…

"It is now the most visited English-language newspaper website in the world,
with over 11.34m visitors daily in August 2014."

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_Online](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_Online)

------
martin1975
Never liked their liberal bias for many of the things they report where the
truth of something cannot be ascertained. I won't be donating.

edit:

wow, didn't know there was this many snopes lovers on here. Got downvoted to
hell. Funny thing is, Silicon Valley's leadership/VCs is extremely
conservative, yet the people who work for them, namely lots of people who read
HN aren't... weird.

~~~
crummy
Can you post examples of this? Just curious.

~~~
ihsw2
Not providing an example but Snopes is apparently biased in every single
direction -- left, right, up, down, etc.

[http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/politics.asp](http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/politics.asp)

~~~
dEnigma
That's a hilarious read. Every site that strives to be neutral should keep a
list like that.

