Disney erased FiveThirtyEight
Nate Silver recounts how Disney systematically dismantled and ultimately erased FiveThirtyEight, likening the process to corporate neglect rather than strategic investment. This post sparked intense debate on HN about the perils of selling to conglomerates, the interpretation of probabilistic models, and the fragility of digital content in the face of corporate whims. It serves as a candid, if self-serving, case study on the disconnect between creative ventures and large corporate management.
The Lowdown
Nate Silver, founder of FiveThirtyEight, details the gradual demise and ultimate deletion of the site's extensive archive by its owner, Disney. He describes the painful experience of witnessing years of work vanish, leading him to reflect on the nature of corporate acquisitions and the impermanence of digital content.
- Silver initially sold FiveThirtyEight to ESPN (owned by Disney) in 2014, seeking a broader platform after successful stints with Daily Kos and The New York Times.
- Despite its success and popularity, especially during the 2016 election, Disney consistently treated FiveThirtyEight as a "rounding error," failing to invest in its profitability or long-term sustainability.
- Silver highlights Disney's refusal to implement a paywall, a proven business model for niche, high-quality content, citing "lack of bandwidth" amidst larger acquisitions like Hulu.
- After numerous internal restructurings, leadership changes, and diminishing resources, Silver left in 2023, taking his model rights, which led to a poorly received, broken new model under a different analyst hired by ABC News.
- The site was fully shut down in March 2025, and by May 2026, its entire archive of approximately 200,000 person-hours of content was redirected to ABC News's homepage, effectively erasing it from public access outside of archives like the Internet Archive.
- Silver's attempts to reacquire the IP to preserve the archive were rebuffed by ABC News, who cited his past public criticisms.
Silver concludes by noting the irony that despite the internet's reputation for permanence, "link rot" is a significant issue, and corporations can easily erase vast amounts of valuable information. He frames the story as a "business school case study" of neglect and mismanagement, ultimately finding his post-Disney life on Substack more fulfilling, even if the ending was "bitter" enough to prevent nostalgia.
The Gossip
Corporate Custodianship & Executive Caprice
Many commenters expressed dismay at Disney's perceived mismanagement of FiveThirtyEight, seeing it as a classic example of large corporations acquiring smaller, valuable assets only to neglect or destroy them. This neglect is often attributed to executive whims, a lack of strategic alignment, or a focus on "leaving a mark" rather than fostering existing successful ventures. The discussion highlighted a broader trend of corporate behemoths failing as stewards of unique brands.
Silver's Selling & Self-Serving Sentiments
A significant portion of the discussion centered on Nate Silver's own accountability. Critics argued that Silver knowingly sold his creation to a large corporation, making his lamentations of its destruction seem like "hindsight virtue signaling" or "sore loser" behavior. Others defended his right to share his experience, emphasizing that it serves as an important case study regardless of his personal choices or intentions.
Probabilistic Predicaments & The 2016 Paradox
The perennial debate about FiveThirtyEight's 2016 presidential election forecast resurfaced. Commenters re-litigated the 30% chance given to Trump, with some arguing it was a failure that discredited the site, while others staunchly defended it as a statistically sound prediction that correctly acknowledged a non-zero, albeit underdog, possibility. This led to discussions about how the public interprets probabilities versus binary outcomes and the impact of such predictions on voter perception.