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”.
The suit that took it away, not from the mom and pop owners. “Mom” already sold her half:
[…]
[…]
She sold her shares “last July”. He went on is honeymoon “last year”. Dad’s dick ruined the last good thing on the internet.
And the current twoowners spent five years getting all shares back.
Snopes is 100% owned by Snopes Media Group.
Sovrn holdings does not own Snopes.
Not that I don’t believe a random person on the Internet, but I don’t believe a random person on the Internet: Any chance you could provide us with some sources about that?
I’m not the one making the claim, but sure.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Richmond_(entrepreneur)
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/snopes-co-owners-acquire-remaining-140000348.html
https://www.snopes.com/disclosures/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/business/media/snopes-plagiarism-David-Mikkelson.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2021/08/15/snopes-founder-david-mikkelson-apologizes-plagiarism/8142956002/
https://www.snopes.com/2021/08/13/apology-from-senior-management/
This is all readily available information. I’m not making claims based on theories as a post in /youshouldknow either.
You should be asking OP to prove their claims.
Thanks, OP is also a random person on the Internet but the sources are appreciated by all.
Sure, but this is youshouldknow not ivegotaconspiracytheory.
Facts are important for a claim like they are making.
I would agree, however it would seem they have edited their post and included sources.
They already had sources which pointed to nothing.
The claims are baseless. I welcome an actual source for their claim - the only response was “But they had an ad company!”.
Meaningless relative to claims.