3 ms·

Flagging is a pretty drastic response to a post you disagree with. Andrew's article was certainly pretty blistering, but he had an argument backed up with evide

Flagging is a pretty drastic response to a post you disagree with. Andrew's article was certainly pretty blistering, but he had an argument backed up with evidence. Saying a post is misleading but offering nothing to back that up is unhelpful to say the least. There was an active and civil comments thread that seems like the perfect venue to have a more enlightening discussion.

studer 16y ago
What argument? Posterous has never claimed that Tumblr was dying, so the whole post was based on a false premise. Go read their original post again if you don't believe me (or read my post in the deleted thread, where I quote the relevant parts).
wooster 16y ago
From Andrew's post: But I have some beef here Preposterous staff, you call all your competitors, who are all building products to serve similar communities, dying? Incorrect. This is a deliberate misreading of the original post ( http://blog.posterous.com/make-the-switch-to-posterous http://blog.posterous.com/make-the-switch-to-posterous ) which states: You grouched about dying platforms that haven't added new features in ages, sites that have made it too complex to perform the most basic tasks and places that smother your content in ads. Again from Andrew's post: Threats of lawsuits are reported, and to me this isn’t about the tools or privacy, it is about a company being a dick and the legal response to just that. There are many possible interpretations of the situation, but companies generally don't bring out the lawyers because another company is "being a dick". Again from Andrew's post: Saying switching to your service is fine, but by discrediting them, both the community behind them and the staff, you are also attacking the full history of the site, which, a lot of people care about. I don't see him backing this up anywhere in the post. He makes a big leap from Posterous lacking "community" features and saying some of the platforms they're writing exporters for are dying, to "discrediting" the communities behind sites and "attacking" the full history of those sites. Then, there's the repeated use of the derogatory "Preposterous", which is roughly equivalent to the old "Windoze" or "Crapintosh". So, again, in my opinion: - the post was trolling - the post is misleading The trolling alone was enough for me to flag the post.

studer 16y ago

What argument? Posterous has never claimed that Tumblr was dying, so the whole post was based on a false premise. Go read their original post again if you don't believe me (or read my post in the deleted thread, where I quote the relevant parts).

wooster 16y ago

From Andrew's post: But I have some beef here Preposterous staff, you call all your competitors, who are all building products to serve similar communities, dying? Incorrect. This is a deliberate misreading of the original post ( http://blog.posterous.com/make-the-switch-to-posterous http://blog.posterous.com/make-the-switch-to-posterous ) which states: You grouched about dying platforms that haven't added new features in ages, sites that have made it too complex to perform the most basic tasks and places that smother your content in ads. Again from Andrew's post: Threats of lawsuits are reported, and to me this isn’t about the tools or privacy, it is about a company being a dick and the legal response to just that. There are many possible interpretations of the situation, but companies generally don't bring out the lawyers because another company is "being a dick". Again from Andrew's post: Saying switching to your service is fine, but by discrediting them, both the community behind them and the staff, you are also attacking the full history of the site, which, a lot of people care about. I don't see him backing this up anywhere in the post. He makes a big leap from Posterous lacking "community" features and saying some of the platforms they're writing exporters for are dying, to "discrediting" the communities behind sites and "attacking" the full history of those sites. Then, there's the repeated use of the derogatory "Preposterous", which is roughly equivalent to the old "Windoze" or "Crapintosh". So, again, in my opinion: - the post was trolling - the post is misleading The trolling alone was enough for me to flag the post.