This is a reasonable take in a vacuum, but a bit of an insane take given the context of everything else that has happened with this fiasco.
There is a notably large group of app developers who all say they have been completely ghosted by Reddit when it comes to any kind of private communication.
Not to mention this comes out of the blue immediately before their IPO after years of status quo, without consulting devs, moderators, or literally anyone outside of reddit HQ. They are also well aware of the cost it would have on 3rd party devs and how unreasonable they are given the extremely-similar level of activity inside the first-party app.
Should a company be allowed to try to make a profit? Of course, no one is arguing against that. The issue is context.
And the way your question is worded implies third party app devs are greedy and unreasonable for wanting to continue to exist while reddit is too mishandled to make a profit. It's a childish "well why can they have anything when I have nothing" take. If the issue is actually profit, why does it only come up without warning just before the IPO? After over 10 years of never coming up before, never even being a discussion point before.
Also, can you name any of the things Reddit has added over the last 5 years that you care about? A single one? They took on both image and video hosting, at I'm sure an insane cost - why? They added NFT avatars - a transparent attempt to cash in on NFTs. A new layout that all the old users hate, removal of the ability to log in on the mobile site. Does anyone remember when they fired Victoria for no god damn reason? Pretty sure that was the last content-related contribution they've made to the platform. Administration is dead set on extracting any kind of profit they can out of something they give no fucks about outside of their ability to profit off of it. They handicap and ruin their own platform for the sake of attempting to make a bit more money.
Context matters. Don't blind yourself by ignoring context.
For anyone else who is interested in reliving the nostalgia of Morrowind, but is turned off by how outdated it feels now, I highly recommend Morroblivion.
For better or worse, it's really easy to get both small and large (i.e., very large -- hundreds of people) video calls going, and it possibly has the best cross-platform support out of every option available right now.
Oh that's unfortunate. It was a post providing proof & explaining that Zoom engineers set up an internal website to monitor certain people's zoom meetings, specifically women who were doing sexual things. I wonder why it got removed, it provided DNS registrar history evidence so it wasn't just hearsay.
> We sent notices to Whoisguard between October 2018 and February 2020, and despite their obligation to provide information about these infringing domain names, they declined to cooperate.
Title should be closer to "Facebook sues Namecheap/Whoisguard for not providing information on phishing domain registrants"
The phishing sites should be taken down no questions, but
what's the obligation for WhoisGuard to provide information to an Internet company? Shouldn't they provide information only to legal authorities?
Surely they should provide the information in response to any reasonable request?
(* reasonable request is obviously a bit vague and needs clarification, but I think there really does need to be a proper policy/procedure for this - WHOIS existed for a reason, and that reason hasn't gone away just because access to that data has been abused).
opening paragraph: "This week we filed a lawsuit in Arizona against Namecheap, a domain name registrar, as well as its proxy service, Whoisguard, for registering domain names that aim to deceive people by pretending to be affiliated with Facebook apps"
Who is the registrant who registered the name? Who is the registration service that recorded the registration? Who requested the name be proxied by a registered name holder?
Which of these actors had 'intent' for the letters in the name?
That's definitely not true, the article mentioned people traveling between countries - TSA/border patrol/airport police aren't going to send your laptop over to the NSA/KGB to have it cracked by an expert. That being said, actually encrypting the data is way more secure than fucking with HD self-reporting.
> For example the CEO edited user’s messages in the r/the_donald to try and create discord between users.
This is inaccurate - it was very clearly not intended to 'create discord between users' and claiming that it was is at best politically biased and at worse a lie.
I just googled it and it seems like he changed messages that were insulting him to insult moderators of the subreddit. The parent's comment doesn't seem wrong to me, if that's true. He altered communications of reddit users to make it look like they were insulting reddit moderators, in such a way as to falsely attribute those insults to the original authors.
You're still spinning it unfairly, by leaving out relevant information. It was a pranking attempt that fell flat, and was neither intended to nor successful in having the effect of surreptitiously turning T_D users against each other. The admin in question quickly admitted to the deed and explained his motives. Attributing other, conflicting motives without further justification is misleading at best.
No you're spinning it by saying "It was a pranking attempt that fell flat". Either way do you really think it's okay for a CEO to "prank" users by silently editing their posts then only admitting to it after being caught. Seems like the "prank" excuse is a spin.
If it was a prank he would have done it and admitted it without getting caught in-between.
Also, it has to be funny to be a prank, otherwise it's bullying, where was the punchline?
Imagine Mark Zuckerberg using FB admin rights to turn a "Donald Trump is the worst president of our generation" post by Biden into "Bernie Sanders would be the worst president of our generation".
Would characterizing that as "an attempt to turn democrats against each other" be fair?
Do you have any examples of 'intent to incite violence' from those subreddits? The difference is that moderators of those subreddits try to remove that type of content.
That's quite a dishonest question. I asked a person that made a claim to provide examples of their claim. I have made no claims about TD inciting violence.
The mods of t_d stickied a recruiting post for the deadly Unite the Right rally in which it was readily acknowledged that their users would be joining ranks with actual Nazis.
>Prior to the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, The_Donald hosted a stickied post encouraging members to attend the rally and march alongside neo-Nazi and “ethnostate” groups, because, “In this case, the pursuit of preserving without shame white culture, our goals happen to align.” [0]
There is a notably large group of app developers who all say they have been completely ghosted by Reddit when it comes to any kind of private communication.
Not to mention this comes out of the blue immediately before their IPO after years of status quo, without consulting devs, moderators, or literally anyone outside of reddit HQ. They are also well aware of the cost it would have on 3rd party devs and how unreasonable they are given the extremely-similar level of activity inside the first-party app.
Should a company be allowed to try to make a profit? Of course, no one is arguing against that. The issue is context.
And the way your question is worded implies third party app devs are greedy and unreasonable for wanting to continue to exist while reddit is too mishandled to make a profit. It's a childish "well why can they have anything when I have nothing" take. If the issue is actually profit, why does it only come up without warning just before the IPO? After over 10 years of never coming up before, never even being a discussion point before.
Also, can you name any of the things Reddit has added over the last 5 years that you care about? A single one? They took on both image and video hosting, at I'm sure an insane cost - why? They added NFT avatars - a transparent attempt to cash in on NFTs. A new layout that all the old users hate, removal of the ability to log in on the mobile site. Does anyone remember when they fired Victoria for no god damn reason? Pretty sure that was the last content-related contribution they've made to the platform. Administration is dead set on extracting any kind of profit they can out of something they give no fucks about outside of their ability to profit off of it. They handicap and ruin their own platform for the sake of attempting to make a bit more money.
Context matters. Don't blind yourself by ignoring context.