3 ms·

Taking content from public accounts to repost without permission for your profit is definitely morally gray.

by ritchiea 8y ago

1024core 8y ago
It's no different than, say, "re-tweeting".
- minimaxir 8y ago
  Retweeting/Quote tweeting preserves the source tweet intact.
noego 8y ago
Sites like Reddit are also profiting off of content produced by other companies such as NYTimes. Companies whom Reddit has certainly not obtained permissions from. Is that morally gray as well? If the "aggrieved" party in his manufactured controversy are the other content creators on Instagram, shouldn't they be the ones to decide whether his behavior is problematic or not? If the allegedly aggrieved party isn't flagging his account and isn't upset about his behavior, why do uninvolved 3rd parties feel the need to jump in with moral judgements?
- ritchiea 8y ago
  It's not manufactured controversy, the biggest accounts who are successful from these aggregation without permission practices are constantly under criticism from the creators whose work they are profiting off. If you think this is "manufactured" google "Fat Jew" or "Fuckjerry" those are 2 Instagram accounts that creators led unfollow protests against because they profit from other's content. There's a ton of criticism of these practices, it's morally grey at best, I believe it's morally wrong. It's not hard to see why this upsets creators. There are thousands of actual content creators, artists, comedians, writers, etc working on social media to make a name for themselves and develop a following (or maintain a following, some of the people aggregators steal from are very successful). These people do the hard work of making original content that is interesting. They suffer failure, they launch new projects and ideas and do a ton of hard work. Then the aggregator accounts skim off the top of the entire network, don't pay the creators and end up with thousands to millions in ad money without doing any of the original & difficult creative work. Rip off at scale is far more lucrative than doing the hard work of making original material. But the lower effort rip off at scale is only possible profiting off of people doing hard work for free.
  - noego 8y ago
    I googled fatjew and fuckjerry as you suggested. Their entire controversy originated because they reposted other people's content without attribution. That's what made it a valid controversy. That's what makes this a manufactured controversy. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/how-instagram-enables-fuckjerrys-success.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/how-instagram-enables... "Threatened by the backlash, Ostrovsky promised to attribute everything that he posted to its source in the future... Tebele and other meme account admins instituted similar policies, and the controversy died down"

Taking content from public accounts to repost without permission for your profit is definitely morally gray.

1024core 8y ago

It's no different than, say, "re-tweeting".

minimaxir 8y ago
Retweeting/Quote tweeting preserves the source tweet intact.

noego 8y ago

Sites like Reddit are also profiting off of content produced by other companies such as NYTimes. Companies whom Reddit has certainly not obtained permissions from. Is that morally gray as well? If the "aggrieved" party in his manufactured controversy are the other content creators on Instagram, shouldn't they be the ones to decide whether his behavior is problematic or not? If the allegedly aggrieved party isn't flagging his account and isn't upset about his behavior, why do uninvolved 3rd parties feel the need to jump in with moral judgements?

ritchiea 8y ago
It's not manufactured controversy, the biggest accounts who are successful from these aggregation without permission practices are constantly under criticism from the creators whose work they are profiting off. If you think this is "manufactured" google "Fat Jew" or "Fuckjerry" those are 2 Instagram accounts that creators led unfollow protests against because they profit from other's content. There's a ton of criticism of these practices, it's morally grey at best, I believe it's morally wrong. It's not hard to see why this upsets creators. There are thousands of actual content creators, artists, comedians, writers, etc working on social media to make a name for themselves and develop a following (or maintain a following, some of the people aggregators steal from are very successful). These people do the hard work of making original content that is interesting. They suffer failure, they launch new projects and ideas and do a ton of hard work. Then the aggregator accounts skim off the top of the entire network, don't pay the creators and end up with thousands to millions in ad money without doing any of the original & difficult creative work. Rip off at scale is far more lucrative than doing the hard work of making original material. But the lower effort rip off at scale is only possible profiting off of people doing hard work for free.
- noego 8y ago
  I googled fatjew and fuckjerry as you suggested. Their entire controversy originated because they reposted other people's content without attribution. That's what made it a valid controversy. That's what makes this a manufactured controversy. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/how-instagram-enables-fuckjerrys-success.html http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/how-instagram-enables... "Threatened by the backlash, Ostrovsky promised to attribute everything that he posted to its source in the future... Tebele and other meme account admins instituted similar policies, and the controversy died down"