There is more to this than just "Save Snopes". From a linked article:
> "The legal fracas between Bardav [Snopes parent company] and Proper Media [hosting company] is complicated by the fact that Mikkelson's ex-wife, Barbara, sold her 50 percent interest equity in the company to Proper Media in July 2016, according to the original complaint. The deal was structured as a sale to the media company's five individual shareholders." [1]
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 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.
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.
Any citations for Snopes running "leftist propo"? I've seen that accusation leveled a few times in this thread and I'm yet to see anyone provide a concrete example.
There's a really big difference between leftists and liberals, actually. A larger difference than between mainstream Republicans and the tea party, I'd say.
Most leftists camouflage as liberals in everyday conversation because their views are very extreme compared to what most have encountered.
I'm not sure why that follows- if anything, in my experience pandering propaganda tends to increase profits - just look at Breitbart on the right and Huffington post on the left. It drives clicks just as well and seems to be cheaper to produce than real investigative journalism.
As TFA mentions, the authors have been cut off from the ad revenue. So it may be producing a lot, but only the hosting company is getting it, if the article is to be believed.
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Sigh, from that article "Bardav signed over a share of Snopes’ revenue to Proper Media in exchange for web services such as management of its back-end advertising platform, according to the cross-complaint." which explains a lot.
Basically Bardav didn't want to deal with the sleazebags that infest "internet advertising" and gave the keys to Proper. That is sort of like letting the local street gang provide valet parking for your restaurant.
The following is entirely speculation based on the above article and the complaints as written.
Since Snopes has high link and host authority in many search engines, one possible explanation here is that Bardav (who hadn't been getting that much from advertising) thought they were getting a "good deal" by having Proper pay their hosting/network fees for half the advertising revenue. But when Proper got things really going (recommendation, don't visit snopes without an ad blocker) Bardav saw that 'half' the revenue was way more than it cost them to host the service. Bardav asked for more of the Ad revenue, Proper refused, Snopes notified them they were going to end the contract, and Proper retaliated by holding the site hostage (they are no doubt the 'owning' user according to the web site provider after all as part of the contract).
No doubt. I think it is a fascinating part of the Internet when the line between people, relationships, and the "product" is so fuzzy. Groklaw being another good example.
> but there's obviously something more going on that indicates problematic life or business choices by multiple parties, which makes me feel less sympathetic.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't bad decisions (that is, decisions that didn't turn out optimally, not decisions that look poorly thought out in hindsight) a necessary condition for any person or organization to call for donations?
I suppose the only alternative circumstances are that the site/business/etc just isn't economically viable. I'd assume most would be even less inclined to donate in those instances.
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't read a lot of lawsuits by any stretch, but this actually makes Proper Media sounds like a bunch of assholes who are trying to seize control of a company they have no right to. Paragraph 5 itself states that "Bardav’s shareholders may not be companies" due to how they elected to incorporate. But this whole lawsuit centers around how "Proper Media" (the company, who can't in-and-of-itself own any portion of Bardav) is the one being wronged, because the actions taken weren't in their favor. They are effectively a vendor. They, as a company, are not the shareholders (even though the underlying people are shareholders in both companies).
They allege that Vincent Green conspired with Mikkelson, but they aren't pursuing legal action against him -- just against Mikkelson?
It sounds like they're just pissed that Snopes no longer wanted to use Proper Media as a vendor. And I can see why they would be. If I owned an office building, and also owned an office cleaning company, I'd want my cleaning company cleaning those offices. But if my tenants decide my cleaning company sucks, should I be able to evict them and take-over their business?
Again, IANAL. I'm probably making the complete wrong analogy and oversimplifying this. Who knows. This is just purely my personal take on something I have zero expertise in, based on a document I skimmed very quickly.
No she did not! That's my point. She sold her 50% interest to 5 individual shareholders who also happened to be "members" (not sure what that means, legally speaking) of Proper Media. Proper Media itself could NOT be an owner even though they clearly wanted it that way:
> "Because Bardav elected pass-through tax treatment under Subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code, Bardav’s shareholders may not be companies
Yeah, that mess does a lot to harm the credibility of a company that is pretty much selling credibility.
I'd be much more keen to support a new Snopes-like service that has a similar commitment without all the baggage. We need reality checking and sanity testing today more than ever.
In community property states (eg California), value gained during the marriage is typically treated as shared unless there's another contract.
A recent famous case, involving the US oil tycoon Harold Hamm, in which the circumstances occurred in Oklahoma (not a community property state), ended with his wife getting a billion dollar settlement. He was already rich before marrying her and already owned his position in the company in question, however he didn't get a prenuptial agreement. She argued successfully that her role in the marriage was a critical assist to his ability to focus on building up the oil company.
I've grown weary of websites posing as bastions of truth that will determine whether it's true or false. It's a fun concept when it covers things like subliminal messages in Disney movies, but when it starts becoming the go-to destination for un-answerable or hotly debated political issues, it gets ugly and I'd rather not support it.
Seems pretty nihilistic, doesn't it? Even when things are hotly debated, objective reality continues to exist, and we owe it to ourselves to strive to understand and acknowledge facts.
It isn't nihilistic. It is honest. We do owe it to ourselves to acknowledge that reality continues to exist. So in keeping with that, it makes sense to acknowledge that in reality these fact checking websites can be compromised. They aren't a bastion of truth, even though they claim to be.
In my personal experience, when fact checking political fact checking, three out of the four claims I investigated turned out to be highly misleading. Usually it was by the person doing the fact checking leveraging the fact that people wouldn't have full context.
I'll give an example. Unemployment. Someone will say un-employment is higher then the statistic suggests, because the way the statistic is tracked has people who are unemployed for a long period removed from the listing. They will then give an estimate of the real statistic. The fact checking will say that this is a pants on fire lie, then cite the unemployment statistic. They will not address the central claim about how that statistic is recorded.
In my estimation, these sites are largely propaganda. Or maybe I'm being too bold in saying that. I know there is research that suggests that people are literally less able to read statistics and think factually in the presence of their political opposition. If given charts to read, charts that disagree with political positions are more likely to be misread then those that don't. There might be more at play then an attempt at influence leverage on the part of the fact checkers.
Either way, I'm inclined not to set the prior the current iteration of fact checking websites are an example of striving for truth and so deserve special value when updating what I believe.
However, I tend to find that non-political and not hotly debated topics don't seem to have this problem of being frequently wrong. So when things aren't highly political, I probably will allow the use of fact checking, because if I'm striving for truth that is expedient.
> In my personal experience, when fact checking political fact checking, three out of the four claims I investigated turned out to be highly misleading. Usually it was by the person doing the fact checking leveraging the fact that people wouldn't have full context.
Care to share your results? If it's really 3/4 it should be very easy for you to provide many examples.
Those who claim that most fact checkers are completely biased, will also claim that most mainstream media is "fake news", that <opposition ideology> is responsible for most social ills, that <person's ideology> is the eternal victim, and so forth.
Recognizing that the truth is not on your political side requires both honesty and clarity of thought, which the average political ideologue is functionally incapable of.
"I don't think fact checking websites should present themselves as the only source of truth" is separate and reasonable argument to make.
"I don't think fact-checking websites should get involved with controversies because it gets ugly" is a rationalization of ignorance.
Yes, fact-checkers who lack credibility are terrible. We shouldn't listen to organizations that repeatedly mishandle or mishandle delicate subject matters.
But the fact checkers who do do their research, who have a track record of being mostly correct in their appraisals, should we just condemn them to ignominy? Should we give up on knowing right from wrong, truth and untruth just because it's hard? Because it's difficult?
Of course not.
If we agree that the truth behind important subjects are worth knowing and worth spreading, then it follows that we need to support those who can spread it. Running away from critical thinking is no solution.
I see it as more of an opportunistic application of solipsism under the guise of skepticism. Using doubt and uncertainty as a weapon to avoid responsibility or accountability.
If the truth isn't on your side, attack the very concept of truth.
> If the truth isn't on your side, attack the very concept of truth.
I'll remember this line. I'll also add that the purpose of "fake news" is not to make one take one side over another: it's to inhibit one's ability to discern between the sides.
Fake News aims to cloud the debate, because that's the only way one side can win; if the people who can object and stop it are unable to tell up from down, and more meaningfully, right from wrong.
Apropos of little, I generally find that a topic being hotly debated is an indicator of low quality of questions being asked about it moreso than the difficulty of the answer.
To use MartinCron’s example. “What is the shape of the earth?” is a high quality question as opposed to “What’s past the horizon?” “What keeps the sky and ground separated?” or “If I’m standing on the ground, what is the ground standing on?”
>Perhaps topics being hotly debated indicates that there is generally no easy answer one way or the other.
Questions that are difficult to answer are debated by many, but not all questions that are debated by many are difficult to answer. For example- Earth is not flat.
I agree - I intended to word my statement in a way that didn't imply that debate meant that truth was hard to find, just that debate may point to the fact that the truth is hard to find.
Counterpoint: Vaccination's (non-existent) links with autism. The inflammation of that debate comes from those who wish to obfuscate an easy answer with a haze of deceit.
I am a huge Obama supporter, but I can see why people who don't like him interpret the video as him encouraging illegal voting. I think the wording made things pretty ambiguous yet Snopes gave a definitive answer that I think ignored the confusing statement.
I don't think this is a good example, and I think his wording is unambiguous. "You’re speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school … who may not have a voice. Who can’t legally vote. But they’re counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard." It doesn't make any sense to interpret that as "illegal aliens should vote on behalf of those who can't legally vote".
I understand why people were upset, because the interviewer is clearly hinting at undocumented people voting, but Obama objectively does not encourage it. He uses the word "citizen" several times, and does not acknowledge the interviewer's weird definition of citizen.
Let me be a devil's advocate on this a little more:
I think one of the important parts of the interview (for the controversy) is:
"So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?
OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself."
When the interviewer says "deport us", it sounds like the 'me' here is not a citizen, so Obama should not have said 'not true' as a response to this.
Also, Obama says "when you vote, you are a citizen yourself" which sounds like voting -> citizen which is obviously nonsense but could be interpreted to go along with the interviewer's weird definition of citizen.
I think conservatives view this as Obama helping to create a viral video that will be interpreted by illegals as encouraging them to vote. Since it wouldn't be proper for him to tell illegals to vote directly, his awkward words let him send that message while allowing him to claim he was misinterpreted. i.e. if Obama wanted to do this, how would he do it differently than he did? (And he did say other things of substance as well so his supporters will claim that's all he was trying to say.)
I find the why much more interesting than the actual ask here.
>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.
Does anyone know what this means in this case? It seems quite careless to me for the owners of a site as significant as Snopes to turn over control of their domain to someone they don't trust absolutely.
Apparently this drama has been going on for a couple of years, and involves a claim of embezzlement. I believe Proper Media gained a significant share of Snopes due to the fact that Snopes' creator/owner was a co-creator; his ex-wife was also a creator and she sold her half to Proper Media in 2016.
Thanks. This is the other side of the story that I wasn't at all aware of. I admit that I don't use Snopes regularly, and so don't have any real stake, but I am even less inclined to donate money after reading the linked articles.
Sounds like they trusted them (plus had a contract), and that trust and contract are now being violated. It's easy in retrospect to say they should have done it differently, but shit happens. Hopefully they get a quick resolution to this issue.
I commented a little earlier. IANAL. I just find this all interesting for some reason.
But it seems that what happened is that Mikkelson and his wife owned the underlying company ("Bardav", it's called), 50/50. They got divorced. She wanted to sell her half to Proper Media. But because of how they were incorporated, only individuals could own shares in Bardav. So these 5 guys from Proper Media decided to just each own a portion of that 50% themselves, then Bardav would contract services out to Proper Media to manage the site.
So Proper Media, as far as I can tell, doesn't -- and in fact CAN'T -- own anything. They're just a vendor. But then Mikkelson decided he didn't want Proper Media (as a vendor) managing things anymore. They even gave the proper 60 days notice according to the lawsuit. But the Proper Media guys are pissed because they're no longer getting paid that way. Sounds to me like they thought that found this slick little loophole to get around the fact that only individuals could own the shares, but they didn't really think it through.
But again, IANAL, and I have no expertise in any of this.
It's fairly common practice to keep a domain name with one company and the hosting with a different company. Then if something goes wrong, at least you have something.
OK, yeah, you have to trust SOMEONE, but it makes a big difference who the someone is. Trusting a reputable registrar is a lot different from handing over total control to Joe Random web developer. I have a feeling that the case here is closer to the latter than the former.
Presumably you do this, set up the mirror, then contact the domain registry with a trademark complaint, they point the domain at you. Then you proceed with copyright infringement claims against the previous host if the content is still accessible.
Does require the company to have itself in order though.
If you donate now what's to say it's not just going to be taken as a dividend by the shareholders? What are the finances like.
FWIW, your submission was listed as [dead] to me when I submitted this link. I'm assuming HN's blacklist includes gofundme.com, though someone has since vouched for your submission and made it un-[dead]
> Please don't post on HN to ask or tell us something (e.g. to ask us questions about Y Combinator, or to ask or complain about moderation). If you want to say something to us, please send it to hn@ycombinator.com.
I don't trust Snopes. I can't quite put my finger on it, maybe it's working with Facebook, maybe it's the whole fake news fiasco, but something just doesn't feel right.
They run through a litany of NGO complaints, basically presenting one side of the debate. However, as early as January of 2016, I had addressed many of those complaints elsewhere [1]. By April of 2016, a respected anti-wildlife trafficking NGO even declared that "it would be rash to rule out the possibility that trade in synthetic rhinoceros horn could play a role in future conservation strategies [2]." Things have only improved from there [3]. Yet, "what's controversial" turns into "what's false" on Snopes. After seeing how the sausage is made, there is no way I'll ever trust them.
Disclaimer: This commenter is a CEO of a firm that is in conflict with Snopes. See:
https://twitter.com/Pembient
In the future, I would recommend disclaiming potential bias through your profile or on the comment itself. Otherwise, commenters who skimm may be misled and commenters who read may question your authenticity.
The Snopes report seems pretty good to me. It may not be favorable to your company's product or plan, but it cites legitimate concerns and douses some inaccurate speculation by some Facebook page looking for likes.
The whole article is an argument from authority with no countervailing facts. To be fair, though, it is much better than the original article, which isn't in the Wayback Machine for some reason. You would think they would keep an archive of changes somewhere! Anyway, I suppose one can hope that the third iteration will be even better.
I'm still almost always successful in finding a well-documented article I can share debunking garbage when I see it on social media and other people are just sharing "in case". Is there a good alternative?
The poynter.org link makes it clear that things aren't clear.
Who, for example, is "the Snopes team" - like actual team people who can be traced and held to account for the money being asked for?
Who are the lawyers, what money do they need, what's the nature of the legal claim, who is the claim against.
Why can't they follow procedure with the registry to (re)gain control of the domain. How can they have, as claimed in the OP, editorial control of the site but not any other control; that makes no sense to me.
The whole thing stinks: It sounds from Poynter.org as if Mikkelson has a partial stake in the company he's seeking to sue.
What sort of money does it take to run Snopes, what are the alleged withheld funds?
Overall to me it doesn't sound, somewhat ironically, as if a completely truthful and reasonably full disclosure of the situation is begin made.
Can anyone unmask this vendor? If their side of the story is correct, it would be enough for any other potential clients to blacklist them unless this is resolved immediately. I'm guessing the situation is more complex?
"Mikkelson was unhappy that Barbara maintained ownership of half of what he always considered to be his company after the divorce," the complaint reads. "Thus, after Proper Media’s purchase of Barbara’s share, Mikkelson sought to finally gain control of Bardav by aligning and conspiring with (Vincent) Green."
Snopes.com /ˈsnoʊps/, also known as the Urban Legends Reference Pages, is a website covering urban legends, Internet rumors, e-mail forwards, and other stories of unknown or questionable origin.[4] It is a well-known resource for validating and debunking such stories in American popular culture,[5] receiving 300,000 visits a day as of 2010.
Snopes.com was created by Barbara and David Mikkelson, a California couple who met in the alt.folklore.urban newsgroup. The site is organized by topic and includes a message board where stories and pictures of questionable veracity may be posted.
Never liked their liberal bias for many of the things they report where the truth of something cannot be ascertained. I won't be donating.
edit:
wow, didn't know there was this many snopes lovers on here. Got downvoted to hell. Funny thing is, Silicon Valley's leadership/VCs is extremely conservative, yet the people who work for them, namely lots of people who read HN aren't... weird.
The guidelines ask us to not complain about downvotes, and it's especially important that we don't make generalizations about the community at the same time. It's mere provocation and doesn't help us towards the kind of thoughtful discussion we're after here.
There's a lot of stupidity on both ends of the political spectrum, but the nature of conservatism seems more prone to conspiracy generation because it's essentially a bunch of political viewpoints that culminate to: government is bad.
Everything from chemtrails to roswell and the moon landing hinge on "the government is trying to fool you" rhetoric.
There are plenty of dangerously bad liberal-leaning conspiracy theories (liberals and conservatives share fault for anti-vax), but it seems fairly obvious that conservative-based theories outpace them in volume.
> the nature of conservatism seems more prone to conspiracy generation
True, but probably not for the reason you describe. Anxiety is a prominent undertone in conservative psychology [1]. That is the nexus conservatism shares with conspiracy theories.
(Note that "liberal" and "conservative@ don't neatly map to modern political parties in almost any democracy.)
yeah, as opposed to liberal trash that makes every corporation that hires nearly 100 million Americans evil... I get your point. Perhaps its something about "truth assessment" websites that gives me the heebie-jeebies.
Like others have stated, I'd like some examples of this. I was first introduced to Snopes by a conservative coworker of mine. From everything I've seen of the site, they're pretty good at trying to be neutral.
Oh HN, downvoting what was asked for. This is why nobody likes talking to you about politics and you think your minority opinions are the majority.
>One person in Silicon Valley even asked me to sign a confidentiality agreement before she would talk to me, as she worried she’d lose her job if people at her company knew she was a strong Trump supporter. - What I Heard From Trump Supporters, sama.
> The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.
2. This article ignores the executive editor's registrations as a Republican and Independent, and doesn't provide any examples of biased Snopes content.
3. This is a nearly fact-free article. The author seems shocked that Snopes doesn't hire unbiased people, but such people don't exist.
I didn't complain about anything, I provided links when someone asked why Snopes is perceived as liberally biased. I get why that's confusing for you though. That's why I included the 3rd link, which addresses, and confirms, the points discussed there from a source that's more palatable to the left.
It's pretty funny really, your comment is indicative of what people perceive as bias. If Carlson's site is somehow off limits for discussion, does that mean that editorials by Maddow, Morning Joe & Mika, Anderson Cooper, etc, are all worthless due to their bias? Or are only right wing sources ok to completely write off?
Eh whatever, the way they act is neutering the left for years to come and they don't even see it. It's pretty funny to watch at this point. Don't worry 2018 will be great!!! Referendum!!!
You're honestly going to confirm bias by not changing the frame of reference? Man, you better not hope to be a lawyer in this lifetime with that mindset
Yeah, there's no journalistic standards over there (and granted I don't think they ever claimed otherwise). Snopes tries to be a debunker, but for political matters, it'll just be debunking in favor of whoever wrote the particular article.
Great for chain letters and virus alerts, but there are probably better places to find out the truth behind the latest political outrage circulating among your friends.
Wasn't there some huge thing in the news about one of their political fact checkers being any actual liberal blogger? I seem to remember that from a couple of years back.
But why is that relevant? I (and assume most people) are capable of assuming different modes of writing, including modes devoid of opinion; or with opinion carefully noted as such.
Parent just asked for an example and I remembered that.
People who feel strongly enough about something to write legitimately leaning fluff pieces are not the personality type that I expect to be able to assume writing modes devoid of opinion, personally. I know very few people who aren't considered moderate/independent who I believe could pull that off.
These are the same people who've been proven to disbelieve factual information when it contradicts their world view.
That is the type of person that I would not trust in a "fact checker" position, especially one in which their version of events will be cited by others as "fact".
> With the number of somewhat mysterious deaths now over 100, this article looks like they gave up trying to debunk all these deaths about ten years ago.
That's because the "Clinton Body Count" is an textbook example of a Gish Gallop [1], a bad-faith debating tactic in which charlatans spread nonsense by spewing forth so much of it that opponents have no hope of countering it all with facts.
Interestingly, the comment to which you're responding seems ready to mount its own Gish Gallop: it uses the old "I don't even know where to begin" gambit at the outset.
> Claim: Bill Clinton has quietly done away with several dozen people who possessed incriminating evidence about him.
> Rating: False
I think you're mistaking your own bias for their's. They have 48 people on that list. Are you insisting that there need to be more deaths that need to be debunked in order for that claim to be rated as something other than False? Unless you have a really good argument for a particular name or names, you come off as someone who will never be satisfied.
So to be clear, the one objection you can articulate after your earlier blanket statement is that they've stopped updating a list of crank conspiracy deaths after every one they investigated turned out to be false?
Face it, you want this absurd Clinton conspiracy theory to be true, and you dislike Snopes because they consistently debunk it. That's not bias, that's presenting truth.
In defense of the Clinton body count thing, I think it would be an assassin's number 1 goal to make an assassination seems like anything but, so it would be reasonable that there would be more reasonable explanations for every incident.
Not saying it happened, or any of those deaths were assassinations, but the nature of the claim makes it perniciously difficult to refute.
If a man who couldn't even get away with some consensual foolin' around with an intern without it becoming global news had access to an untraceable assassination force capable of removing people with impunity, how do you explain the fact that so many of his enemies are still alive?
rocks are hard, water's wet... no one denies those facts.
But if someone suggests that Seth Rich shot himself twice in the back of his head..... and Snopes calls it false, does that make Snopes left or right leaning?
How is that quest for "value free facts" going for you?
I think the real point of snopes is that it includes a lot of the information you may want to consider when exploring the truth of something. Is it okay to disagree with Snopes? Sure, but you should indicate what facts it isn't taking into account or which inaccuracies are included in its write up. This lets you have a more substantive discussion than just believing the original claim or just dismissing Snopes as fake news.
> "The legal fracas between Bardav [Snopes parent company] and Proper Media [hosting company] is complicated by the fact that Mikkelson's ex-wife, Barbara, sold her 50 percent interest equity in the company to Proper Media in July 2016, according to the original complaint. The deal was structured as a sale to the media company's five individual shareholders." [1]
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.
[1] https://www.poynter.org/2017/snopes-is-locked-in-a-legal-bat...