Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fact-checking and Rumor-dispelling Site Snopes.com Held Hostage By vendor (savesnopes.com)

Posted by msmash on from the growing-tension dept.

Snopes.com, which began as a small one-person effort in 1994 and has since become one of the Internet's oldest and most popular fact-checking sites, is in danger of closing its doors. From a report: Since our inception, we have always been a self-sustaining site that provides a free service to the online world: we've had no sponsors, no outside investors or funding, and no source of revenue other than that provided by online advertising. Unfortunately, we have been cut off from our historic source of advertising income. 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. Although we maintain editorial control (for now), the vendor will not relinquish the site's hosting to our control, so we cannot modify the site, develop it, or -- most crucially -- place advertising on it. The vendor continues to insert their own ads and has been withholding the advertising revenue from us. Our legal team is fighting hard for us, but, having been cut off from all revenue, we are facing the prospect of having no financial means to continue operating the site and paying our staff (not to mention covering our legal fees) in the meanwhile.

12 of 401 comments (clear)

  1. Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    After claiming to be "unbiased" and "neutral" only to be caught red-handed publishing political propaganda for the DNC, all I can say is "good riddance."

    1. Re:Good Riddance by OYAHHH · · Score: 0, Troll

      Totally agree! The site had become just another editorial website.

      --
      Caution: Contents under pressure
    2. Re:Good Riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Take your pills you poor wretched soul

      The Republicans are not the party of mental illness. No, that would be the folks who find it a beautiful think for biological males to take girls' and women's sports championships, records, and scholarships. And the folks who say that we shouldn't talk about the crimes against humanity committed in the name of Islam for fear of offending that portion of Muslims who don't happen to commit those crimes.

    3. Re:Good Riddance by yuriklastalov · · Score: 0, Troll

      All religious people are evil bigots unless they're Muslim, in which case they dindu nuffin.

    4. Re:Good Riddance by KiloByte · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, it's obvious bias. All available information point to him being a Democrat, there's not a single piece that says otherwise. Thus, it's dishonest to say "mixed".

      If your wife tells me you drove off to work an hour ago, and your commute is half an hour, it is reasonable to assume you actually are at work. You could have an accident, or went visit a lover, but in absence of further information, a valid simple answer is "at work" or at most "should be at work", not "no idea".

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    5. Re:Good Riddance by sideslash · · Score: 1, Troll

      Because the Democrats are good and truth is good. So if a claim about a Democrat is bad, even if it's not a falsehood there must be a little bit mixed in there somewhere. I think the Snopes thought process goes something like that, for this extremely low quality spin piece.

  2. Re: After the couple admitted to fake news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why pretend that the couple that runs it didn't admit to a bias and to intentionally lying?

  3. Why are they panhandling? by cunina · · Score: 0, Troll

    Can't they just make a call to George Soros and get whatever money they need to keep their propaganda machine running?

  4. Did you expect any differently? by s.petry · · Score: 0, Troll

    Snopes lost their reputation with most of us long ago. Sad, since I liked them early on had some fun with facts like "John Wayne didn't die with 40lbs of red meat in his colon".

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  5. Re:After the couple admitted to fake news... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 0, Troll

    Wingnuts like the one above dislike Snopes because it keeps telling the truth that contradicts their lies.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  6. Re:After the couple admitted to fake news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Snopes claims they are not biased:
    http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/politics.asp

    Some of their people are known to be very biased:
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#27672e54227f
    https://medium.com/@amuse/why-you-shouldnt-trust-snopes-for-political-fact-checking-a71f60aaf6d7

    And sometimes Snopes gets it wrong, to the point people call them liars:
    http://www.dailywire.com/news/14030/politifact-and-snopes-caught-lying-about-democrats-john-nolte#exit-modal
    http://yournewswire.com/snopes-caught-lying-for-hillary-again-questions-raised/

  7. Re: Rumor by 517714 · · Score: 0, Troll

    That may be their stated mission, but it is by no means their main mission. Their bias has become painfully obvious, so it is only for a question with virtually no political aspect that they can be trusted.

    --
    The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.