7 ms·

> 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, w

by untog 9y ago

> 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. I don't think sympathy needs to be a reason to donate to Snopes. It provides a valuable service - if you want it to stick around, you might consider donating. To he honest, compared to an organisation like Wikipedia, which seems to spend a crazy amount of money constantly, this situation makes me more sympathetic to Snopes the organisation, even if not to the individuals involved.

ronack 9y ago
But reading the above account, it sounds like Snopes has devolved into something of an outsourced content farm, and various parties are now squabbling over control of the cash cow.
- graphitezepp 9y ago
  Anything Snopes like (aka used as an authority for truth) has a large chance of someday descending into a various parties squabbling for control situation. Not surprised if that is more or less the case.
  - skrowl 9y ago
    For what it's worth, a lot of people like myself consider Snopes a source of leftist propo, not truth. I only mention that because propo outlets often run in to control & finance problems. Look at NYT.
    - untog 9y ago
      Any citations for Snopes running "leftist propo"? I've seen that accusation leveled a few times in this thread and I'm yet to see anyone provide a concrete example.
      - distantsounds 9y ago
        Did you check Snopes? According to them, they are all over the map :) http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/politics.asp http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/politics.asp
      - chasing 9y ago
        They fail to completely adhere to the right-wing Fox News counter-narrative. People caught up in that consider everything else "leftist propo."
        Pxtl 9y ago
        Colbert said it best: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias".
        rfrank 9y ago
        Is that why the reality of 2016 election results was such a surprise?
        Pxtl 9y ago
        Since when did politics have anything to do with reality?
        rfrank 9y ago
        Since always, which calls into question the validity of the leftist lens. But hey, no point arguing that to a crowd who actively hates middle America.
    - random28345 9y ago
      > For what it's worth, a lot of people like myself consider Snopes a source of leftist propo, not truth. Is this more "reality has a known liberal bias" sarcasm? Or as you saying the entire concept of objective truth is leftist propaganda?
    - mattnewton 9y ago
      I'm not sure why that follows- if anything, in my experience pandering propaganda tends to increase profits - just look at Breitbart on the right and Huffington post on the left. It drives clicks just as well and seems to be cheaper to produce than real investigative journalism.
      - mixedCase 9y ago
        As TFA mentions, the authors have been cut off from the ad revenue. So it may be producing a lot, but only the hosting company is getting it, if the article is to be believed.
    - chasing 9y ago
      > For what it's worth, a lot of people like myself consider Snopes a source of leftist propo, not truth. That's much more a reflection of your biases than theirs.
    - fnordsensei 9y ago
      > For what it's worth [...] It's not worth a lot, unless backed up by fact.
    - culturalzero 9y ago
      There's a really big difference between leftists and liberals, actually. A larger difference than between mainstream Republicans and the tea party, I'd say. Most leftists camouflage as liberals in everyday conversation because their views are very extreme compared to what most have encountered.
dahart 9y ago
Will donating help Snopes resolve it's ownership & legal issues? The call for donations doesn't seem to suggest that. Will Snopes need ongoing donations forever to stay in operation? Donating to replace ad revenue seems like a temporary measure at best that doesn't address the root problem, from what I'm reading in the comments here. Why might I want to donate to keep Snopes alive for a few months if the legal problem looms and the site could shut down anyway?
- thinkloop 9y ago
  > Donating to replace ad revenue seems like a temporary measure at best that doesn't address the root problem I'm not sure about the legal issues, but donations don't have to be temporary. Many organizations run for decades from continuous streams of donations.
  - dahart 9y ago
    Sure, you're right, but I'm really only asking about the legal issues. The call for donations implies that the other owner has some control over the site content, and must clearly have control over the ad revenue. It doesn't seem like this particular organization has any chance of running for decades with this particular legal issue hanging over it's head, does it? To address your point, it would be nice if the call for donations was clear about whether this is intended to be a permanent change in Snopes' funding model, and whether the new goal is to be an org that runs on donations for decades.
- untog 9y ago
  > Why might I want to donate to keep Snopes alive for a few months if the legal problem looms and the site could shut down anyway? A fair question, but why might I want to donate to keep Wikipedia alive for a year if I'm only going to have to donate again in a year's time? A donation doesn't always have to have a concrete result - keeping the lights on is a legitimate aim.
  - dahart 9y ago
    Wikipedia doesn't have an ownership dispute, right? You're right, and I agree that keeping the lights on is a legitimate aim, in general for organizations not in the middle of a legal battle. My question is whether funds are the primary threat/solution to keeping the lights on, or whether the legal battle is the real problem and whether funds can even solve that problem. I like the service that Snopes provides, and I'm open to donating for a good cause, but I don't know the whole story here, I don't want to declare sides in someone else's battle, I don't want to prolong the inevitable, I don't want to contribute to someone else's pain, I don't want to waste my money on a lost cause, etc. etc.
anigbrowl 9y ago
It provides a valuable service - if you want it to stick around, you might consider donating. If it provides a valuable service why can't it establish cash flow with media partners? Passing the hat is not a business model To he honest, compared to an organisation like Wikipedia, which seems to spend a crazy amount of money constantly I imagine running the infrastructure for Wikipedia is pretty expensive. Also, I've gotta say that WP is an order of magnitude more impressive than Snopes. And I've been a supporter of snopes since it was just the two Mikkelsons on Usenet.
- untog 9y ago
  > Passing the hat is not a business model Serious question: why not? Why would it be a less reliable method than partnering with famously unreliable media companies? There's nothing wrong with subscription models, I don't see why donations are meaningfully different.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    first, because contractual relations are more predictable than solicitations. Two, because it's tedious for your possible customers. This was the role publishers filled; building a market and curating content. Unlimited digital distribution has upended that, but without providing a better alternative to content creators. Yes, it has opened new markets like YouTube vlogging and so on, but that's not a good thing. It's much harder to monetize quality content and privileges the shallow and sensational. You end up with a bimodal distribution of very high-budget quality content (ie big budget movies with famous actors), and tons of low-quality content, and very little in between. That doesn't make for sustainable consumption economies, but it's not clear what's on the horizon to replace them, so you're storing up another economic crash. I predict the upshot of this will be that as intellectual property rights and the ecosystem that existed around them (which sustained far more people than the cartoonish stereotypes that prevail here) have crumbled for all but the most powerful actors, something similar will happen with other contractual and property relations. https://hbr.org/2014/01/income-inequality-is-a-sustainability-issue-2 https://hbr.org/2014/01/income-inequality-is-a-sustainabilit...

by untog 9y ago

ronack 9y ago

But reading the above account, it sounds like Snopes has devolved into something of an outsourced content farm, and various parties are now squabbling over control of the cash cow.

graphitezepp 9y ago
Anything Snopes like (aka used as an authority for truth) has a large chance of someday descending into a various parties squabbling for control situation. Not surprised if that is more or less the case.
- skrowl 9y ago
  For what it's worth, a lot of people like myself consider Snopes a source of leftist propo, not truth. I only mention that because propo outlets often run in to control & finance problems. Look at NYT.
  - untog 9y ago
    Any citations for Snopes running "leftist propo"? I've seen that accusation leveled a few times in this thread and I'm yet to see anyone provide a concrete example.
    - distantsounds 9y ago
      Did you check Snopes? According to them, they are all over the map :) http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/politics.asp http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/politics.asp
    - chasing 9y ago
      They fail to completely adhere to the right-wing Fox News counter-narrative. People caught up in that consider everything else "leftist propo."
      - Pxtl 9y ago
        Colbert said it best: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias".
        rfrank 9y ago
        Is that why the reality of 2016 election results was such a surprise?
        Pxtl 9y ago
        Since when did politics have anything to do with reality?
        rfrank 9y ago
        Since always, which calls into question the validity of the leftist lens. But hey, no point arguing that to a crowd who actively hates middle America.
  - random28345 9y ago
    > For what it's worth, a lot of people like myself consider Snopes a source of leftist propo, not truth. Is this more "reality has a known liberal bias" sarcasm? Or as you saying the entire concept of objective truth is leftist propaganda?
  - mattnewton 9y ago
    I'm not sure why that follows- if anything, in my experience pandering propaganda tends to increase profits - just look at Breitbart on the right and Huffington post on the left. It drives clicks just as well and seems to be cheaper to produce than real investigative journalism.
    - mixedCase 9y ago
      As TFA mentions, the authors have been cut off from the ad revenue. So it may be producing a lot, but only the hosting company is getting it, if the article is to be believed.
  - chasing 9y ago
    > For what it's worth, a lot of people like myself consider Snopes a source of leftist propo, not truth. That's much more a reflection of your biases than theirs.
  - fnordsensei 9y ago
    > For what it's worth [...] It's not worth a lot, unless backed up by fact.
  - culturalzero 9y ago
    There's a really big difference between leftists and liberals, actually. A larger difference than between mainstream Republicans and the tea party, I'd say. Most leftists camouflage as liberals in everyday conversation because their views are very extreme compared to what most have encountered.

dahart 9y ago

Will donating help Snopes resolve it's ownership & legal issues? The call for donations doesn't seem to suggest that. Will Snopes need ongoing donations forever to stay in operation? Donating to replace ad revenue seems like a temporary measure at best that doesn't address the root problem, from what I'm reading in the comments here. Why might I want to donate to keep Snopes alive for a few months if the legal problem looms and the site could shut down anyway?

thinkloop 9y ago
> Donating to replace ad revenue seems like a temporary measure at best that doesn't address the root problem I'm not sure about the legal issues, but donations don't have to be temporary. Many organizations run for decades from continuous streams of donations.
- dahart 9y ago
  Sure, you're right, but I'm really only asking about the legal issues. The call for donations implies that the other owner has some control over the site content, and must clearly have control over the ad revenue. It doesn't seem like this particular organization has any chance of running for decades with this particular legal issue hanging over it's head, does it? To address your point, it would be nice if the call for donations was clear about whether this is intended to be a permanent change in Snopes' funding model, and whether the new goal is to be an org that runs on donations for decades.
untog 9y ago
> Why might I want to donate to keep Snopes alive for a few months if the legal problem looms and the site could shut down anyway? A fair question, but why might I want to donate to keep Wikipedia alive for a year if I'm only going to have to donate again in a year's time? A donation doesn't always have to have a concrete result - keeping the lights on is a legitimate aim.
- dahart 9y ago
  Wikipedia doesn't have an ownership dispute, right? You're right, and I agree that keeping the lights on is a legitimate aim, in general for organizations not in the middle of a legal battle. My question is whether funds are the primary threat/solution to keeping the lights on, or whether the legal battle is the real problem and whether funds can even solve that problem. I like the service that Snopes provides, and I'm open to donating for a good cause, but I don't know the whole story here, I don't want to declare sides in someone else's battle, I don't want to prolong the inevitable, I don't want to contribute to someone else's pain, I don't want to waste my money on a lost cause, etc. etc.

anigbrowl 9y ago

It provides a valuable service - if you want it to stick around, you might consider donating. If it provides a valuable service why can't it establish cash flow with media partners? Passing the hat is not a business model To he honest, compared to an organisation like Wikipedia, which seems to spend a crazy amount of money constantly I imagine running the infrastructure for Wikipedia is pretty expensive. Also, I've gotta say that WP is an order of magnitude more impressive than Snopes. And I've been a supporter of snopes since it was just the two Mikkelsons on Usenet.

untog 9y ago
> Passing the hat is not a business model Serious question: why not? Why would it be a less reliable method than partnering with famously unreliable media companies? There's nothing wrong with subscription models, I don't see why donations are meaningfully different.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  first, because contractual relations are more predictable than solicitations. Two, because it's tedious for your possible customers. This was the role publishers filled; building a market and curating content. Unlimited digital distribution has upended that, but without providing a better alternative to content creators. Yes, it has opened new markets like YouTube vlogging and so on, but that's not a good thing. It's much harder to monetize quality content and privileges the shallow and sensational. You end up with a bimodal distribution of very high-budget quality content (ie big budget movies with famous actors), and tons of low-quality content, and very little in between. That doesn't make for sustainable consumption economies, but it's not clear what's on the horizon to replace them, so you're storing up another economic crash. I predict the upshot of this will be that as intellectual property rights and the ecosystem that existed around them (which sustained far more people than the cartoonish stereotypes that prevail here) have crumbled for all but the most powerful actors, something similar will happen with other contractual and property relations. https://hbr.org/2014/01/income-inequality-is-a-sustainability-issue-2 https://hbr.org/2014/01/income-inequality-is-a-sustainabilit...