3 ms·
So Nate & Co sell out to a big corporation then are upset that it does big corporation stuff? I'm more mad at Nate here because 538 was my go-to for political c
by queuebert 6mo ago
So Nate & Co sell out to a big corporation then are upset that it does big corporation stuff? I'm more mad at Nate here because 538 was my go-to for political coverage pre-sellout, and because of his greed it went away.
- returningfory2 6mo agoYour annoyance is understandable, but it's worth remembering: he is not your slave. He does not exist to do things for you. His providing you with something good for a time does not obligate him to provide it to you forever. Because he is not your slave.
- queuebert 6mo agoYou are quite correct. I'm also free to dislike him for his choices.
- jaredhansen 6mo ago[flagged]
- adjejmxbdjdn 6mo agoWhatever you feel about his actions that was at worst it was a win-lose decision. He benefited from it. If his comment is accurate, then ABC’s decision is a clear lose-lose decision driven entirely by personal spite.
- lesuorac 6mo agoHonestly is Nate even wrong here? IIRC, he got to keep all of the models and etc from 538 which is kinda all that mattered about it. Like anybody is really going to lookup the 2016 election in 2030 but they're definitely want the model's output in 2030 for 2030. Management seems to be clearly inept and if somebody wants to give you a wheelbarrow of cash for something worthless you're generally foolish to not accept.
- afavour 6mo agoI don’t think that’s all that mattered. FiveThirtyEight was a strong brand, it was definitely worth something.
- derektank 6mo agoI still own a Fivey the Fox t-shirt
- Hamuko 6mo agoHe never sold the prediction models, and only leased them to ABC/538, so they left with him as he left the company.
- IAmBroom 6mo agoWhich is just restating what the parent comment said...
- alisonatwork 6mo ago538 had some decent years through its various sellout phases and imo hit its peak after Nate Silver left - he'd long since exposed himself more as a contrarian than a serious analyst and had become a real detriment to the brand. It was definitely sad to lose 538 how we did, but G Elliott Morris has really stepped up to continue the spirit on his Strength in Numbers blog. It's the best data-driven US politics reporting out there right now imo. He also contributes to Fifty Plus One with Mary Radcliffe, and that's excellent too, reminiscent of the old 538 polling roundup stuff that went beyond just core US politics. Recently he started a podcast with David Nir of The Downballot, which is another solid resource for lower level races.
- Hnrobert42 6mo agoI understand your frustration, but greed? He didn't owe you anything. So what if he cashed out?
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- bfung 6mo agoJust follow the man, not the brand. He’s still doing his thing: https://www.natesilver.net/ https://www.natesilver.net/
- dangus 6mo agoBut he kind of sucks and isn’t worth following. He’s a sellout at heart, including his recent association with Polymarket. Someone cool would have never sold out a website as good as 538 used to be. Now he’s more interested in profiting off of gamblers.
- jimbokun 6mo agoYou do realize the person responsible for 538 is the same person?
- kortilla 6mo ago… yes, that’s why he mentioned that he isn’t cool for selling 538…
- fragmede 6mo agoPeople change over time. The Nate Silver of 2026 isn't the same Nate Silver of 2010 or 2013.
- furyofantares 6mo agoThat's a funny response in the context of "Now he’s more interested in profiting off of gamblers" given I remember posting with him on the 2+2 forums in the early aughts poker boom days where he was a popular poster teaching a lot of people how to profit off gamblers.
- matltc 6mo ago2+2 is great. Still go check on casino megathreads if I wanna play somewhere in a new town
- aaron695 6mo ago[dead]
- marysol5 6mo ago"Upset" is far from what happened here.
- vintermann 6mo agoIt's petty even for a corporation. It's not exactly maximizing shareholder value. But yeah, it's the sort of stuff corporations (especially media corporations) can be expected to do. I think Nate has become better at this sort of stuff in recent years. But still, he said that Disney "hardly ever" interfered in their editorial process, oblivious to the implication. (What it means is that Disney/ABC were perfectly willing to interfere in their editorial process, but rarely needed to since Nate said what they wanted him to say anyway).
- ownlife 6mo agoHow can we jump to that conclusion? Maybe they were only willing to interfere in that process in extreme cases.
- vintermann 6mo agoWhat would that look like? Can you see a concrete scenario where it was somehow justified by ABC Disney to interfere in 538's editorial process? There's not much extreme about Nate Silver.
- IAmBroom 6mo agoWhich means they interfered when they really wanted to, which is the point you were responding to.
- fn-mote 6mo ago> then are upset that it does big corporation stuff Parent says because they “criticized our management of the brand”. Big corporations don’t give a crap. They are 100% about the bottom line. This isn’t “big corporation” behavior.