You Should Know
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
view the rest of the comments
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_[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
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.