Is Free Republic a Fraud? Is it time for Free Republic to go away?

Free Republic | 11/28/01 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

Free Republic has had one helluva run over the last five years or so. We helped impeach one president and helped get another into office. We've been active in demonstrations and protests in nearly every city across the nation. We've participated in conventions, petition drives, activism campaigns and projects for dozens of conservative causes.

We've grown from a tiny web site with a few hundred posters and readers from the time of inception in 1996, to one with tens of thousands of participants today. Along the way we've made lots of great friends and, unfortunately, also made lots of bitter enemies.

We've grown from a small web site that I could manage myself on a part-time basis to a huge monster that has totally consumed all of my time and resources plus nearly all of John's time, plus the time and resources of many dedicated FReepers who volunteer or contribute large amounts of their own time and money.

The site is now consuming all of a 10 mbps dedicated line with two servers and we're still growing, and it consumes large amounts of money to keep all this running. In the early years, it only took a few thousand dollars per month to keep Free Republic on the air, but it is now costing over $20,000 per month to cover all expenses.

The major costs include approximately $8,000 per month for bandwidth, 3,000 for systems management and programming services, 7,000 for management, operating and administrative services, plus two or three thousand per month for miscellaneous office expenses, telephone, communications, repairs & maintenance, travel & lodging, postage, rentals, insurance, legal fees, accounting fees, etc., etc.

We anticipate a reduction in bandwidth costs next year as we renegotiate our contract (the market price for bandwidth has fallen recently), however, that will be more than offset by an expected increase in costs of our legal expenses. As most of you know, our pro bono attorney has left us and we've hired a new attorney to continue with our case, plus we have the suit against eschoir to pay for. My projections are that our regular monthly expenses for next year will be running in the neighborhood of $22,000 per month, or approximately $264,000 total for the year. This means we will need to raise approximately $66,000 per quarter.

Talking about making enemies, we've got several ex-FReepers and other detractors who are claiming on their anti-freeper web sites that I am ripping off the donors and that Free Republic is a fraud. Now, Free Republic is what it is, and it is definitely not a fraud. It is a conservative news discussion forum that encourages participation in politics and activism projects. It is not being billed as anything else. We are not selling or promising anything. And I am being up front about our operating costs. The costs of running Free Republic are what I've stated above and they are necessary to keep FR on the air. I do not have the financial wherewithal to operate this site without your help. If the majority of the FReepers feel that these costs are out of line or too much to bear or that Free Republic is no longer wanted or needed, then we will either cut it back or shut it down or do something altogether different.

I've also been criticized about not making our financials public. Well, the reason I do not want to do this is that I have been sued, both personally and as Free Republic, LLC. The people suing us want to bankrupt us and shut us down. They subpoenaed our financial records, but we refused to turn them over. The judge agreed that the plaintiffs have no right to the information, thus I have no intention of making any more of it public than I absolutely have to, until this lawsuit is resolved. You all know the amounts of money we raise if you follow the fundraising threads. It is all above board and out in the open. The totals posted by BadJoe are usually pretty close to the actual cash received and the amounts expended are pretty close to the amounts projected. No one is getting rich here and no one is being ripped off. The funds raised are being used for the purposes stated, and that is keeping this website on the air and that's it. Nothing fraudulent about it. Those who want to help fund us freely do so with nothing expected in return. Those who do not want to contribute do not have to.

There was a thread running this morning where people were making all kinds of accusations about Free Republic "hiding the truth" or whatever. These accusations are being made by Chuck Allan and others and fall along the same line with the accusations being made by some of the earlier banees or AFers including Mojo, Inspector Harry Callahan, Arator, keep U.S. Sovereign, TKEman and others. Some of these people are existing FReepers and some are banned. I am going to reinstate Mojo, Inspector Harry Callahan and Arator's accounts so they can join Chuck Allan, TKEman, K.U.S.S. and whomever else wants to get involved, and I invite them to come onto this thread and make their accusations public. As long as they do not go onto other threads and make a nuisance of themselves, I will let them have their say.

Like I said above, if it is time for Free Republic to go away so be it. Those who want to keep it going speak up. Those who want it to go away, tell us why. But if those who want it to be gone lose out in the debate, then I'd say they should just go away themselves, or, in the very least, shut up and quit whining about it.

Thanks,

Jim

[monkeyshine]

There is at least one claim still unanswered. The rules have pretty much been no racist posts, no abscenities, no personal attacks, no spam. I think if those are the rules people are told when they come in, they will be kind of shocked to get thrown out for not breaking them. Not that this bestows on anyone any right to stay, as the terms of use are pretty clear it is up to the management. It just means that they have a reasonable complaint.

I do agree it is bellyaching at this point. Jim Rob has heard this complaint over and over. It's up to him to decide what to do, if anything. In the meantime, everyone is clear in knowing that anything can happen. I personally think the moderators are overzealous, but that is the way it is. Take it or leave it. I did complain once that a whole thread was pulled because I put a lot of researched links on it and one bad freeper caused the whole thing to go down. Low and behold, the thread was reinstated with only the offending post removed. Because of that I think that JimRob does have a forgiving, merciful soul and will do the right thing when presented with a reasonable opportunity to do it. B*tching and moaning and getting into a p*ssing match doesn't appeal to one's forgiving side.

[monkeyshine]

Can I be the 'monkeyshine moderator' with the power to insert monkeyshines in between people's posts?

[Jim Robinson]

Well, they are dedicated to their task. All day long, seven days a week, holidays included. I believe some of them are about to earn their three year anti-FReeper badges. Wonder if they earn retirement pay at twenty years.

[Freeman Patrick Henry]

If what you're telling me is true, then that's pretty damned sad.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, actually, we were getting a lot of complaints about too many posts being pulled, etc., so I asked the moderators to lighten up a bit. We're now pulling only the very worst and issuing fewer warnings and banning or suspending only on the worst offenses (unless we spot an obvious disruptor, racist, bully, etc.). This has been in effect for a couple two or three days. And now? You guessed it. The complaints are starting to pick up the other way. We're now being accused of leaving up way too much crap. Ok, just as long as we stay somewhere closer to the middle between the two extremes, perhaps we can keep this thing on the tracks. Kinda tricky balancing the wants and needs of so many disparate groups. We can't please them all, so we try to keep working toward our own goals (you know, less gov, less taxes, less intrusion, more freedom, life, liberty, happiness, fewer marxists in gov, etc. [oh, yeah, many people get so tied up in fighting with each other that they forget we have a larger purpose here]) while trying to please as many of our conservative/right-wing factions as possible. Some can't hack it. It's gotta be wide open or nothing. Others say you can't deviate from the straight and narrow. Well, some who crap out get banned, some who can't take it go away and never come back, some become life-long FReeper friends and some become life-long anti-FReepers. We do the very best we can with what we have and we don't worry too much about the ones who can't hack it.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Torie]

The point that some can't really seem to understand is that you do have an FR constituency for whom you must attend for this site to survive. The obvious corollary of that is that the farther you views are from those of the "mainsteam," the more factual and reasoned and polite it behooves one to behave. That should be the goal of all of course, but if you are both at one end of the bell curve of FR opinion, and also nasty and superficial, well, it is hardly any surprise that you get short shrift.

Have you noticed how extra polite I am on those infrequent occasions when I discuss gay marriage? LOL.

[Jim Robinson]

Gay marriage? Now there's a choking thought. Saw one today where two gay men want to have children. Also saw a post about turtles that breathe through their butt. Don't know if there's a correlation or not, but the one reminded me of the other. Strange new world we live in.

[Torie]

I brought it up to emphasize a point, and to spice you up at up this late hour. Apparently I succeeded.

[Jim Robinson]

"1) Verify the security of FReepmail, as in no one being able to post using another's name;

2) Comment as to the authenticity of Clarity's emails to Z2."

1) Well, you can't send a FReepmail message unless you are logged into the account. The FReepmail database is organized and protected to the point that it would be mighty difficult for an outsider to get to it. I'd say it's as secure we can be reasonably expected make it.

2) Well, I have not compared them word for word, letter for letter to the originals, but from the looks of the ones I've seen, they appear to be authentic.

[Jim Robinson]

I'd say it's as secure as we can reasonably be expected to make it (it might help, Jim, if you would proof read the display screen).

[Always Right]

Well, actually, we were getting a lot of complaints about too many posts being pulled, etc., so I asked the moderators to lighten up a bit. We're now pulling only the very worst and issuing fewer warnings and banning or suspending only on the worst offenses (unless we spot an obvious disruptor, racist, bully, etc.).

Thank you! I know you can't please everyone, but I favor a little more restraint before pulling threads.

[Jim Robinson]

Yes, I believe I did. And I've seen some of the stuff that is floating around and claimed to be released by Brian. I would be shocked if it was actually Brian that released these communications. Brian has way too much class to be involved in anything like this. Something's really strange about this.

[Lazamataz]

Print this message, the one I am pointing to, and put it over your computer. You've got it nailed, esp the part about keeping our eye on the ball. BTW: It's true: When you get an eqaul number of complaints from both sides, you are at the perfect level.

[Bryan]

Quite a little thread you've got going here, Jim. Over at the Anti-Freeper sites, they're on it like white on rice. I told them that the dispute with Winston & Strawn has been resolved, and they refuse to believe it. (When it's about Free Republic, they'll only believe bad news.)

Regarding the e-mails between Jim and Clarity, I think both of you are probably telling the truth. Clarity, I'm sure you notified Jim. Jim, I'm sure you get hundreds of e-mails every day, and you might have seen one from Clarity at 3:30 AM that didn't seem important at the time.

There are a lot of issues that I'd like to discuss. At the top of the list are financial disclosure and continued solvency. I can certainly understand, Jim, why you choose to handle these issues this way for now; and I hope you can understand why I respectfully disagree on some points.

Right now, I'm going to get a few hours of sleep. Taking subscription fees or other serious income-generating measures right now may not be necessary. But a formal one-page financial disclosure, like TKEman is requesting, wouldn't hurt. It doesn't need to disclose any details that you don't want to disclose ("miscellaneous operating expenses" can cover a multitude of minor sins), and I'll even chip in for the CPA.

[Z2]

Jim,

You told Aligyrl that Clarity's emails to me "appear to be authentic."

Three posts later, you indicate that you would be shocked if Brian "released these communications."

Are you suggesting that somehow, someone else released these communications, using Clarity's FReepmail? If so, how would this person have access to Clarity's communications with you?

Finally, do you have any objection to me posting the remainder of the FReepmails I (and Ali) have received from Clarity, to enable you and anyone else to respond to them? Might I be allowed to open a separate thread on the subject?

Thanks again for responding.

[Z2]

Jim,

Clarity seems to be offering the subject email as evidence that you knew that the Winston and Strawn bill could be as high as $100,000. You have said you had no idea the W&S fees would be so high.

After receiving this email from Clarity, did you direct him to do anything to limit the amount of the Winston & Strawn fees?

Thanks.

[Ratatoskr]

Well, actually, we were getting a lot of complaints about too many posts being pulled, etc., so I asked the moderators to lighten up a bit. We're now pulling only the very worst and issuing fewer warnings and banning or suspending only on the worst offenses (unless we spot an obvious disruptor, racist, bully, etc.).

Excellent! That will go quite a way toward re-enthusing the conversations around here. Political sites thrive on debate, even the salty kind.

The complaints are starting to pick up the other way. We're now being accused of leaving up way too much crap.

Well, of course. But those are different people from those who complained of too much moderation, aren't they? There is always a Fluffy Pink Bunny Brigade who believe in cutting dissent to the bone. In my experience, these aren't nice people. They're simply control freaks who dislike being disagreed with and love to impose their world view on others.

Speaking of which, it wouldn't hurt at some point to repeat the old words discouraging religious threads on the grounds that they're off-topic on a political site. Lately, the place has exploded with prayer threads and reprinted sermons. And the "Harry Potter is Hellspawn" stuff (60 Potter articles at my last count) is just embarrassing.

[IronJack]

And what if the farmer asked me to chip in for the paint? Would I have "whining" rights then?

I suppose. And so would all 70,000 others who "chipped in for the paint." And if Mr. A wanted a red barn and Ms. B wanted it blue, how do we reconcile THOSE differences? Do we paint the barn purple, thus enraging the anti-purples? Do we paint it white or beige -- some nice neutral that bores everyone to tears? Or do we contribute the money secure in the knowledge that the farmer is smart enough to paint the barn the color HE wants because it's HIS barn and he'll never please everyone anyway.

That seems to boil the option down to either contribute, knowing that that doesn't buy you a seat on the Board of Directors, or don't contribute and continue to use the service for free. At least until it reaches the point where either the farmer throws the deadbeats out of the barn, or the IRS forecloses on the farm and you have to hold your shindigs in the church basement.

[Z2]

Jim,

Clarity seems to be offering the subject email as evidence that you knew that the Winston and Strawn bill could be as high as $100,000. You have said you had no idea the W&S fees would be so high.

After receiving this email from Clarity, did you direct him to do anything to limit the amount of the Winston & Strawn fees?

Thanks.

[IronJack]

Speaking of which, it wouldn't hurt at some point to repeat the old words discouraging religious threads on the grounds that they're off-topic on a political site. Lately, the place has exploded with prayer threads and reprinted sermons. And the "Harry Potter is Hellspawn" stuff (60 Potter articles at my last count) is just embarrassing.

Listen to yourself! You no sooner tell Jim that he's stifling debate than you proceed to suggest what kinds of threads he might consider banning. Do you shave in two mirrors so you can see both faces at the same time?

This is the very essence of the struggle this site undergoes. Some self-righteous prig decides that a particular viewpoint doesn't have the right to be heard, so he demands that it be squelched. He doesn't argue the points or defeat the logic, he goes whining to the teacher because little Billy pinched him. But when Billy whines to the teacher, then he cries "censorship" and "bias," and refuses to do his homework.

If we can't tolerate controversy better than this, we'll never be a force to be reckoned with. Remember, the strength of a principle is not measured by the ease of its application, but by its breadth.