Hacker News Reader

Comment by untog | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com