https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes#Change_of_ownership
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Richmond_(entrepreneur)#Snopes.com_lawsuit
https://www.wired.com/story/snopes-and-the-search-for-facts-in-a-post-fact-world/
https://www.courthousenews.com/fact-checker-snopes-owners-accused-corporate-subterfuge/
https://web.archive.org/web/20220923232402/https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/snopes-co-owners-acquire-remaining-140000348.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovrn_Holdings
Snopes.com has been thought of as a reputable and trusted site for fact-checking.
From 2016 to 2022, the original mom-and-pop owners were sued out of their company in what was described as a “hostile takeover”.
Snopes is now owned as a for-profit “programmatic advertising business”.
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.
@T00l_shed@lemmy.world @frunch@lemmy.world @gibmiser@lemmy.world
Thank you.
Kindly; not trying to debate:
Why did Snopes stop posting disclosures (formerly a yearly process), right after the current owners gained control?
If the current owners of Snopes make their money from digital advertising businesses, why would they not leverage the synergy between Snopes and programmatic advertisement to generate further revenue?
This doesnt prove anything about ownership that you are alleging, which does not match any documentation out there.
So while I agree they should be continuing, its completely unrelated to your unfounded claims regarding Sovrn.
Again, irrelevant to the claim you’re making, which is demonstrably false.
Its absolutely appropriate to criticise snopes. It is entirely inappropriate to spread misinformation about the current ownership though.
Sovrn does not own Snopes Media Group. There are only two owners of Snopes Media Group, Schoentrup and Richmond.
Aren’t these two the investors he’s talking about? The original owners were a husband and wife team. The wife sold her shares to these two jamokes and then these two maneuvered to get the other 50%. I’m not sure where you think he is spreading misinformation.
No, they are implying it was sold to Sovrn here.
TV Tropes, Snopes, and Salon are the companies they run, Proper Media was sold to Sovrn (for the record, in 2021, not 2022).
Thats… Not “investors” as implied here, which would be a venture capitalist firm or even independent ones.
Which these two are not.
Edit: corrected my language.
Nothing that op wrote says what you’re saying. He put a link to sovrn because these two had an ad company that they sold to sovrn. Nothing in the articles he linked says sovrn is running snopes nor did OP imply that.
Their response to me would disagree, or they would have commented as much on my statement regarding Sovrn.
I’d also be real hard pressed to call them “investors”. At that point anyone who has ever operated any business, has a 401k, has bought stocks, etc, is an “investor”.
What’s implied here is clearly the vulture capitalist firms. Best case scenario, they used bad wording.
But the complete lack of response to anything regarding the statements about Sovrn, and instead posting unrelated and irrelevant information about Snopes disclosure page updates kind of points to that not being the case.
This post is misinformation.
Edit: I’d also recommend reading their reply to me.
Its basically “well why wouldn’t they do this thing I’m claiming but have no proof of?”
Thats not a “you should know”, thats a “Ive got a conspiracy theory”.
I’d also note that yes, someone who ran an ad company will absolutely be the right person to run something freely accessible to the public and supported by ads.
Its the internet. Most free websites are supported by ads.
Please feel free to point me to any verifiable source that supports any of the claims made in the post or single subsequent reply.