Hacker News Reader

Comment by taftster | Hacker News Reader

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...

View on HN

> 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.

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.

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.

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?

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

And keeping the homeless fed and sheltered is also a legitimate aim. But there are charities that do it very well and you can be confident your money will be wisely spent and it may even impact more longer-term projects to help people become self-sufficient again, and there are charities that have other drama going on in the background that means your dollar won't help as much as it reasonably could and you might be buying a philanthropist poser a new jet ski.

The call for donations suggests that, among other things, they will help pay legal fees.

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.

> 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.

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-sustainabilit...

Sigh, from that article "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." which explains a lot.

Basically Bardav didn't want to deal with the sleazebags that infest "internet advertising" and gave the keys to Proper. That is sort of like letting the local street gang provide valet parking for your restaurant.

The following is entirely speculation based on the above article and the complaints as written.

Since Snopes has high link and host authority in many search engines, one possible explanation here is that Bardav (who hadn't been getting that much from advertising) thought they were getting a "good deal" by having Proper pay their hosting/network fees for half the advertising revenue. But when Proper got things really going (recommendation, don't visit snopes without an ad blocker) Bardav saw that 'half' the revenue was way more than it cost them to host the service. Bardav asked for more of the Ad revenue, Proper refused, Snopes notified them they were going to end the contract, and Proper retaliated by holding the site hostage (they are no doubt the 'owning' user according to the web site provider after all as part of the contract).

I wonder if this will kill Snopes as we know it.

I can't imagine the messy divorce is unrelated to her wanting to pass on some of the responsibilities.

No doubt. I think it is a fascinating part of the Internet when the line between people, relationships, and the "product" is so fuzzy. Groklaw being another good example.

So you're saying we need a snopes article about snopes' request for help?

> but there's obviously something more going on that indicates problematic life or business choices by multiple parties, which makes me feel less sympathetic.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't bad decisions (that is, decisions that didn't turn out optimally, not decisions that look poorly thought out in hindsight) a necessary condition for any person or organization to call for donations?

I suppose the only alternative circumstances are that the site/business/etc just isn't economically viable. I'd assume most would be even less inclined to donate in those instances.

The lawsuit itself: http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Sno...

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't read a lot of lawsuits by any stretch, but this actually makes Proper Media sounds like a bunch of assholes who are trying to seize control of a company they have no right to. Paragraph 5 itself states that "Bardav’s shareholders may not be companies" due to how they elected to incorporate. But this whole lawsuit centers around how "Proper Media" (the company, who can't in-and-of-itself own any portion of Bardav) is the one being wronged, because the actions taken weren't in their favor. They are effectively a vendor. They, as a company, are not the shareholders (even though the underlying people are shareholders in both companies).

They allege that Vincent Green conspired with Mikkelson, but they aren't pursuing legal action against him -- just against Mikkelson?

It sounds like they're just pissed that Snopes no longer wanted to use Proper Media as a vendor. And I can see why they would be. If I owned an office building, and also owned an office cleaning company, I'd want my cleaning company cleaning those offices. But if my tenants decide my cleaning company sucks, should I be able to evict them and take-over their business?

Again, IANAL. I'm probably making the complete wrong analogy and oversimplifying this. Who knows. This is just purely my personal take on something I have zero expertise in, based on a document I skimmed very quickly.

>sounds like a bunch of assholes who are trying to seize control of a company they have no right to

The part that's not obvious is that the Mikkelson couple originally had 50/50 ownership, and Mrs Mikkelson sold her 50% interest to Proper Media.

No she did not! That's my point. She sold her 50% interest to 5 individual shareholders who also happened to be "members" (not sure what that means, legally speaking) of Proper Media. Proper Media itself could NOT be an owner even though they clearly wanted it that way:

> "Because Bardav elected pass-through tax treatment under Subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code, Bardav’s shareholders may not be companies

Ahh, thanks...I see. That is messy.

Yeah, that mess does a lot to harm the credibility of a company that is pretty much selling credibility.

I'd be much more keen to support a new Snopes-like service that has a similar commitment without all the baggage. We need reality checking and sanity testing today more than ever.

It will not be the first nor last time an ex screws over an ex.

Which bad choices do you think someone made here?

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

If said shares were acquired after the start of the marriage.

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...

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

Maybe, but that's irrelevant because they founded the company together.

Why are you just assuming that the company was his alone and she had no ownership at the time of the divorce?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com