The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
Sorry but maybe I'm missing something here.
AFAIK, mikkelson got pushed out because he plagiarized and caused all kinds of issues. The co-owners took back all shares. The sale to Sovrn was their adtech company, not Snopes.
Richardson and Schoentrup still own Snopes.
Sovrn Holdings does not own Snopes based on any information shared here.
Okay so I sludged through all the links and comments and I think I have it now:
So no, Richmond (and his 'business partner Schoentrup' - I suppose just a financial backer? it's not clear.) runs Snopes by hisself. No ad company involved.
I mean, you could arguel that someone who started an ad company at all, in the first place, should be pelted with rocks and garbage, but even then he sold it before fully acquiring all of Snopes. Presumably, they were also keenly aware that running Snopes and an ad company would not be a good look.
I think that's it.
🫡
100% accurate.
I need a snopes link to this info about snopes.
Who fact checks the fact checkers?
Community Note:
Your account is no longer eligible to participate in Community Notes.
Reason: Your account has be flagged as "RADICAL LIBERAL WOKE AGENDA PROPAGANDIST"
"SUPPORTER OF SOCIALIST COMMUNIST FASCISM"
The Watchmen ...... so basically we're fucked
This has the same energy as the folks running around doing a disinfo op on Wikipedia. None of this is true and either OP wildly misunderstood the situation or they're intentionally being deceitful.
I'd assume good faith—misunderstanding. It's quite easy and sound to arrive at this interpretation if you forget that the current owners sold off their ad company a year before getting 100% control of Snopes.
In casual conversation IRL, if someone made this claim, I'd assume good faith. Or even in a reply to an existing discussion of Snopes. But OP decided to make a post without verifying their information and then went through and defended that take in the comments when people explained the actual facts to them. This wasn't done in good faith, it would appear.
Interesting analysis of perceived motives between interaction environments; thank you.
I am glad for all the discussion in, and response to, this thread.
in what was described as a "hostile takeover"
[by whom?]
By OP in this very post he made here on Lemmy
Fuck. That sucks.
If it were true, I would agree.
It does not appear to be true.
Did you check snopes?
I read the articles posted (which are about an adtech company sale, not about Snopes, just misunderstanding that Snopes is supported by ad revenue among other sources), checked Wikipedia, and yes, Snopes has its own disclosures which can be found here:
https://www.snopes.com/disclosures/
This post is misinformation.
Unfortunately the page you linked to hasn't been updated since Nov 20th, 2022, event though before that it appears to have been updated at least annually.
Yes, a valid criticism of Snopes as I said elsewhere.
And completely irrelevant to OPs claims.
The suit that took it away, not from the mom and pop owners. “Mom” already sold her half:
Mikkelson and his ex-wife Barbara founded Bardav – which owns the Snopes website – in 2003, and each owned a 50 percent shared in the company. When the two divorced, Barbara Mikkelson sold her share to Proper Media last July.
[…]
“Mikkelson, in conjunction with Green, intentionally did block Proper Media’s access to personnel, accounts, tools and data to take over Snopes and to prevent Proper Media from performing under the general services agreement,” Proper Media says in its lawsuit.
[…]
The company also accuses Mikkelson of misusing Bardav funds and says he was improperly reimbursed for legal fees related to his divorce and travel expenses from when he went on a honeymoon to Asia late last year with his new bride – Snopes employee Elyssa Young.
She sold her shares “last July”. He went on is honeymoon “last year”. Dad’s dick ruined the last good thing on the internet.
And the current twoowners spent five years getting all shares back.
Snopes is 100% owned by Snopes Media Group.
Sovrn holdings does not own Snopes.
Not that I don't believe a random person on the Internet, but I don't believe a random person on the Internet: Any chance you could provide us with some sources about that?
I'm not the one making the claim, but sure.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Richmond_(entrepreneur)
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/snopes-co-owners-acquire-remaining-140000348.html
https://www.snopes.com/disclosures/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/business/media/snopes-plagiarism-David-Mikkelson.html
https://www.snopes.com/2021/08/13/apology-from-senior-management/
This is all readily available information. I'm not making claims based on theories as a post in /youshouldknow either.
You should be asking OP to prove their claims.
Thanks, OP is also a random person on the Internet but the sources are appreciated by all.
Sure, but this is youshouldknow not ivegotaconspiracytheory.
Facts are important for a claim like they are making.
I would agree, however it would seem they have edited their post and included sources.
They already had sources which pointed to nothing.
The claims are baseless. I welcome an actual source for their claim - the only response was "But they had an ad company!".
Meaningless relative to claims.
Love how success in this country basically just makes you a target for the most unscrupulous capitalists around.
I know! We're talking about Belgium, yeah?
They haven't been honest for awhile now. I don't know who the owners are, don't care. It's obvious they're choosing to say what they want to be true.
Would you like to elaborate?
Not really. It's happened over time. I post a lot to c/politics (every weekday) and used to double check with them here and at the old place occasionally. I stopped doing that about 2 years ago because every time I did, their false, partially true and true didn't seem to match what they were saying in the articles. I didn't keep track of which ones they were, I just stopped using them as a trusted source.
God fucking dammit. That is so dissapointing. I know snopes wasn't perfect but I mostly trusted it.
I am so disillusioned with news. I care a ton but... I can't
It looks like it only would be disappointing. Copy + pasted comment from the user Optional down below:
Okay so I sludged through all the links and comments and I think I have it now:
Barbara and David Mikkelson started snopes. They got divorced, she sold her half to RIchmond and Schoentrup.
They had met because Richmond started an ad company, their first client was Snopes.
After Barbara sold, David claimed they only got 40% not 50% of the shares which meant everyone spent money and time on lawyers, which everyone loves doing.
Around this time, Richmond sold his ad company. He sold it to Sovrn, who - if they did own Snopes it would totally suck, but they don't. Richmond held on to Snopes.
In 2022, Richmond and Mikkelson finally agreed to a buyout where Mikkelson would take more of their money and then GTFO. Which he did.
So no, Richmond (and his 'business partner Schoentrup' - I suppose just a financial backer? it's not clear.) runs Snopes by hisself. No ad company involved.
I mean, you could arguel that someone who started an ad company at all, in the first place, should be pelted with rocks and garbage, but even then he sold it before fully acquiring all of Snopes. Presumably, they were also keenly aware that running Snopes and an ad company would not be a good look.
I think that's it.
Who is to say that Snopes was the gold standard?
On August 13, 2021, BuzzFeed News published an investigation by reporter Dean Sterling Jones that showed David Mikkelson had used plagiarized material from different news sources in 54 articles between 2015 and 2019 in an effort to increase website traffic.[
The shareholder that became a CEO had owned a huge chunk of snopes for years. They just made it official.
That was a founder who was pushed out over that behavior.
Those articles were also removed immediately following the the report from BuzzFeed, and Mikkelson admitted to what he had done.
Side note, public universal friend is based