Monetizing Metabunk?

Libertarian

Active Member
Banned
is there alot of money to be had in debunking UFOs over Loch Ness?
Presumably there is money made in distributing the original bunk. It occurred to me that the debunking process is not likely profitable, which is too bad. Was wondering how it can be made more profitable to spend time debunking. There must be a way to monetize Metabunk. Perhaps through sponsorship arrangements with distributors of quality news? IE a "Metabunk approved" or something? Kind of like a BBB for news. Mick would need to strip the left bias out of the debunks for this to be appealing across the spectrum. But that would happen naturally with additional editors of his calibre I think.
 

NoParty

Senior Member
Impressive. How do you find the time for this Mick? Is there any profit in this for you? If not can we help you monetize it in some way?
Holy crap! Welcome back Lib! :D

You won't believe this, but just a couple of hours ago I was asking myself where you'd
disappeared to for nearly 3 months...
Hell, I even looked up that white elephant Dying of Money book you "invested" ;) in,
to see if hopefully you weren't still taking a beating on your $365 (tip: don't look it up!!) :oops:

Anyway, glad to see you back in the fold, Canuck!


p.s. I think "monetizing" would just give the CTs one more thing to claim "bias!!!" about
(Hell, they already routinely call Mick a
"paid shill" without making even a half-hearted
pretense of providing any evidence...imagine what they'd do if they actually had something) :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
Mick would need to strip the left bias out of the debunks for this to be appealing across the spectrum.
Nah. Nessie and UFOs appeal to everybody no matter what political slant halogen lightbulbs are.

It occurred to me that the debunking process is not likely profitable, which is too bad.
Snopes, Fact check.com, all you need to do is add advertising to the page like they do. But not everybody sees everything in terms of money like you do. The day he adds those commercials you cant find on the page, to hit 'pause', is the day I'm outta here :)
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Presumably there is money made in distributing the original bunk. It occurred to me that the debunking process is not likely profitable, which is too bad. Was wondering how it can be made more profitable to spend time debunking. There must be a way to monetize Metabunk. Perhaps through sponsorship arrangements with distributors of quality news? IE a "Metabunk approved" or something? Kind of like a BBB for news. Mick would need to strip the left bias out of the debunks for this to be appealing across the spectrum. But that would happen naturally with additional editors of his calibre I think.
I don't know about you, but I think one of the "selling points" of Metabunk is that it is independent, not-for-profit and not accountable to advertisers. "Monetising" is really not a good idea. Metabunk debunkings have found their way into the media quite well without any money changing hands. In fact that's how I first discovered Metabunk: via Mick's explanation of the "missile launch" that was actually a sunlit contrail.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member
I don't know about you, but I think one of the "selling points" of Metabunk is that it is independent, not-for-profit and not accountable to advertisers. "Monetising" is really not a good idea. Metabunk debunkings have found their way into the media quite well without any money changing hands. In fact that's how I first discovered Metabunk: via Mick's explanation of the "missile launch" that was actually a sunlit contrail.
Agreed, once you monetise you start to loose independence. He who pays the piper etc. I mean Metabunk and it users has been very critical of the likes of Alex Jones and co for the way they spread their BS, but are strangely silent about the BS their backers and advertisers are linked with. To sink to their level would leave this site open to the same levels accusations of hypocrisy.

Then it would discredit us even more in the eyes of the CT community and those on the edge of the rabbit hole by linking Metabunk with the hated enemies such as the 'demonic' mainstream media.

A third problem is one of impartiality, What if one of the key advertisers was accused of bunk peddling? It does happen from time to time (I'm thinking of situations like the BBC's reporting of the Orgreave incident as a prime example)

Could metabunk really deal with such an issue and risk loosing a major backer and maintain credibility at the sametime?

Personally I think not.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
How do you find the time for this Mick?
I'm retired. Things like this Loch Ness debunking are fun little puzzles. As a side effect they bring more traffic to the site.

It occurred to me that the debunking process is not likely profitable, which is too bad. Was wondering how it can be made more profitable to spend time debunking. There must be a way to monetize Metabunk.
I'm not doing it to make money. It's a hobby, something that helps many people individually, and something that's hopefully helping the greater good.

The day he adds those commercials you cant find on the page, to hit 'pause', is the day I'm outta here :)
Like Snopes :)


Snopes is a useful resource, but they do seem to have upped the ads recently. I don't think that's the same thing as Alex Jones, as they are just "normal" ads. Alex Jones is generally endorsing the crap he's selling (Like "Super Male Vitality"), but I don't think the Mikkleson's are shills for Big Salad Dressing.
 

BombDr

Senior Member
This site is a great bastion of sanity, and its very integrity is its independence and the fact the that charge of being a 'shill' has absolutely nowhere to go.

I like that courtesy that is applied to all site users, and the ability to disagree like gentlemen (and ladies).

If it is monetised, then it is in danger of losing credibility and that would be a real shame considering everyone's hard work and fact-based analysis.

In particular I would worry that Mick's integrity would be called into question by bunk-enthusiasts and the discussion in question may be lost into questions as to why xxx company has advertising on Metabunk.
 

Efftup

Senior Member
I agree with everyone else.
I am very pleased to have a little Island of sanity to go to , free of ads and donate buttons.
And as everyone else said, the fact people throw the paid shill accusation around cos they don't like the truth, it;s very good there is absolutely NOTHING to substantiate that at all.
Mick has already said how little it costs him to run this site, it;s great we can all come along and disagree with each other or work together to reach an answer on something.
This is one website that really does genuinely seek the truth.
 

Libertarian

Active Member
Banned
I don't know about you, but I think one of the "selling points" of Metabunk is that it is independent, not-for-profit and not accountable to advertisers. "Monetising" is really not a good idea. Metabunk debunkings have found their way into the media quite well without any money changing hands.
Agreed, once you monetise you start to loose independence. He who pays the piper etc. I mean Metabunk and it users has been very critical of the likes of Alex Jones and co for the way they spread their BS, but are strangely silent about the BS their backers and advertisers are linked with. To sink to their level would leave this site open to the same levels accusations of hypocrisy.
There are ways to earn money without losing credibility. I think Snopes' method of scattershot advertising is not classy, and I'm not really a fan of Google's either, in that they will pimp themselves out to anybody willing to pay them. I actually really like some of Infowars' revenue generation models in that they fund their operation and make money without exposing them to claims that they have "sold out". For instance, their "Made in 1776" line of clothing is advertised to be quality "Made in America" clothing that has been marked up by 100-150%. The art is original and so if the buyer likes the product, the result is a win-win-win for the buyer, Infowars, and the manufacturer. The buyer gets quality apparel and feels like he supported an alternative media outlet that he likes. The seller receives the markup. And the manufacturer gets to employ Americans and also earn a profit.

Sellng some "Got Bunk?" T-shirts made by Americans and marked up 100% couldn't hurt. In fact, if the revenues were channelled back into improving the servers etc. it could supercharge Metabunk.
 

Efftup

Senior Member
There are ways to earn money without losing credibility. I think Snopes' method of scattershot advertising is not classy, and I'm not really a fan of Google's either, in that they will pimp themselves out to anybody willing to pay them. I actually really like some of Infowars' revenue generation models in that they fund their operation and make money without exposing them to claims that they have "sold out". For instance, their "Made in 1776" line of clothing is advertised to be quality "Made in America" clothing that has been marked up by 100-150%. The art is original and so if the buyer likes the product, the result is a win-win-win for the buyer, Infowars, and the manufacturer. The buyer gets quality apparel and feels like he supported an alternative media outlet that he likes. The seller receives the markup. And the manufacturer gets to employ Americans and also earn a profit.

Sellng some "Got Bunk?" T-shirts made by Americans and marked up 100% couldn't hurt. In fact, if the revenues were channelled back into improving the servers etc. it could supercharge Metabunk.
why would I want T shirts made by Americans? That's the kind of crap that WORKS on Infowars because it appeals specifically to the sort of ideaology held by a lot of the people who believe his stuff.
Metabunk is a WORLDWIDE Web Site and we have members from all over the world.

not many people here really want Metabunk Monteized. It's a lose/lose situation./
Mick apparently doesn't need the money, but doing this would lose credibibility of the site. ( and we have enough "shill" comments as it is.
 
Why do so many people have such a hard time imagining motives other than making money? Some of us passionately pursue activities that actually cost us money.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member
I have no plans to monetize Metabunk, so y'all can stop trying to think of ways of doing so.
Im with Mick on this one.. as SOON as you start adding any notion of money anywhere.. at all.. in ANY form what so ever to a site like this, it does nothing but cause trouble. Most of us here are already seen as shills.. what happens when one of the adverts comes up as a recruiting link for the US MIlitary.. or the CIA when they do employment drives? Dont you think thats just going make things worse and not better?

Mick's made enough money as a programmer to do what he enjoys and not worry about money. He's said it a thousand times.. its a hobby.. he does this for FUN. He pays for his website as a hobby expense.. I say let him do what he enjoys. I dont see anyone ponying up cash to pay for my video game hobby expenses.. why should they? Its what I do for fun, in my spare time (when Im not here giving Mick migraines).
 
Top