Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Snopes.com in Danger of Shuttering [View all]LiberalArkie
(19,177 posts)15. From TechCrunch
https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/24/snopes-seeks-crowdfunding-in-ownership-battle/
Snip
Snopes was founded in 1995 by David Mikkelson and Barbara Mikkelson, and ownership formalized in 2003 in Bardav Inc (Get it? Barbara + David = Bardav). Each had one share of the company. But in 2014 the two began divorce proceedings, which would of course necessitate negotiating ownership of their company and Snopes.
In August of 2015, Snopes entered a revenue-share/content and ad management agreement with a company called Proper Media, formed earlier that very year. In early 2016, Proper arranged to buy Barbaras share of Bardav, replacing her as co-owner of the company. David Mikkelson attempted to kill the contract in spring of 2017 (wouldnt you?), but Proper resisted, saying the terms of said contract were not fulfilled. In the meantime, it is apparently holding onto the sites revenue and parts of its infrastructure.
To me this sounds like an opportunistic takeover, but in addition to not being a lawyer, I also am not a businessman, so possibly Im just naive. At the same time, Proper alleges that Mikkelson misused company funds and inappropriately managed Bardav otherwise. The details are being cherry-picked by both sides, as generally happens in dueling lawsuits (not to mention when a divorce is mixed in), so I dont want to give too much credit to either side here.
But the bigger picture to me is this: Snopes itself is valuable enough (in terms of utility, not cash value), and Mikkelsons leadership has been sound enough for years, that it seems worth giving him benefit of the doubt for now. To me the important thing is that Snopes continue its work, as it has done for decades, and its unlikely things would remain the same if its put under the control of some shady content company.
Snip
Snopes was founded in 1995 by David Mikkelson and Barbara Mikkelson, and ownership formalized in 2003 in Bardav Inc (Get it? Barbara + David = Bardav). Each had one share of the company. But in 2014 the two began divorce proceedings, which would of course necessitate negotiating ownership of their company and Snopes.
In August of 2015, Snopes entered a revenue-share/content and ad management agreement with a company called Proper Media, formed earlier that very year. In early 2016, Proper arranged to buy Barbaras share of Bardav, replacing her as co-owner of the company. David Mikkelson attempted to kill the contract in spring of 2017 (wouldnt you?), but Proper resisted, saying the terms of said contract were not fulfilled. In the meantime, it is apparently holding onto the sites revenue and parts of its infrastructure.
To me this sounds like an opportunistic takeover, but in addition to not being a lawyer, I also am not a businessman, so possibly Im just naive. At the same time, Proper alleges that Mikkelson misused company funds and inappropriately managed Bardav otherwise. The details are being cherry-picked by both sides, as generally happens in dueling lawsuits (not to mention when a divorce is mixed in), so I dont want to give too much credit to either side here.
But the bigger picture to me is this: Snopes itself is valuable enough (in terms of utility, not cash value), and Mikkelsons leadership has been sound enough for years, that it seems worth giving him benefit of the doubt for now. To me the important thing is that Snopes continue its work, as it has done for decades, and its unlikely things would remain the same if its put under the control of some shady content company.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
59 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yes it is, and there are accusations that the host server controls the webpage
Brother Buzz
Jul 2017
#9
What a mess of a situation. Whatever is true and not true, I hope they can figure it all out.
xor
Jul 2017
#54
Need some reliable 3rd party verification/investigation of what is actually happening here. n/t
PoliticAverse
Jul 2017
#18
Same. I know the RWers dismiss Snopes as another "liberal media' outlet,
Dark n Stormy Knight
Jul 2017
#23
Doesn't sound good for Snopes. I guess right wingers are wrong that George Soros owns Snopes.
Hoyt
Jul 2017
#26
They rant about Soros and could care less than the Koch's donate 15 times more than him
MrPurple
Jul 2017
#52
It seems like something that Zuckerberg would buy with the change in his couch. n/t
DefenseLawyer
Jul 2017
#27
My web host also offers domain name registration; my domain name registrar also offers hosting
rocktivity
Jul 2017
#40
This happened because the site was owned 50-50 between the husband and wife partners and...
PoliticAverse
Jul 2017
#45
The problem isn't that they hired someone to manage the content. The problem is that after....
PoliticAverse
Jul 2017
#49
Yes, but the decision to go with the CMS/Ad seems to have been in the middle of that.
politicat
Jul 2017
#50