31 ms·

Tumblr is an absolute goldmine of pure original content unavailable anywhere else. A savvy enterprise that acquired it should re-allow adult content with howev

Tumblr is an absolute goldmine of pure original content unavailable anywhere else. A savvy enterprise that acquired it should re-allow adult content with however many filters they like to make amends with the community and devote a while to redo UX and quality of life. Content creators will absolutely come back, as no proper competitor ever rose in the current vacuum yet. After that it could turn into a unicorn in less than a year.

cageface 7y ago
I think we're going to see companies start pulling back from hosting user generated content in general. Policing it is a massive headache and a guarantee of getting pulled into all the current political dogfighting.
- Nextgrid 7y ago
  Not a bad outcome if it encourages people to self-host.
  - lostlogin 7y ago
    Self hosting as a service!
- abraae 7y ago
  "there's brass in muck" though. Someone - maybe not a FAANG but someone smaller and hungrier - will find a way to successfully and profitably steward UGC sites, just as Reddit seems to be able to.
  - DC-3 7y ago
    > profitably steward UGC sites, just as Reddit seems to be able to I thought Reddit has never been profitable?
  - throwaway55554 7y ago
    They better hurry before FAANG and Congress make it much more expensive to start up.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Creationer 7y ago
  If those companies are based in the US, EU, or China, sure. The whole GDPR, Content Filtering thing seems like a massive opportunity for a savvy, unregulated South American, African or Asian company to take advantage of.
  - AsyncAwait 7y ago
    > The whole GDPR, Content Filtering Why lump privacy protections together with upload filters as if they're both bad. If you service doesn't abide by the GDPR, I'd try to avoid it. On the other hand, upload filters are a disaster and not at all comparable to GDPR, not in terms of what they do to the end-user, not the burden they place on service providers.
    - mises 7y ago
      Because it's not for you to pick and choose which laws you wish to follow. If a firm starts in the third world, it also likely cannot handle the regulatory burden of gdpr. For what it's worth, it would only have to be out side Europe. If a firm has no office in Europe, it would be difficult for Europe to enforce its laws. Extradition requires it be a crime in both countries.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    Then you need yours ads to also come from those areas, and I am not sure the ad dollars are there, especially if they are being shown to people in western countries.
    - asdff 7y ago
      Why can't a US company buy ad space on a South American website?
      - cortesoft 7y ago
        Because that American company would be held to American laws, and if the point of the South American company was to skirt American laws, that isn't going to work.
- ralusek 7y ago
  Or we could go back to the concept of content-agnostic neutral platforms, the best of which have self-moderation available to taste (e.g. subreddit subscriptions). There seems to be a growing reluctance to accept that a person or a group being allowed to exist on a platform does not in any way serve as an endorsement of that person or group. I believe that the copyright legislation in Europe, for example, has very little to do with copyright, and very much to do with holding platforms accountable for the content that their users produce. The net result is the platforms necessarily invoke nuance-less strategies for sanitizing the content according to a narrow band of what is acceptable.
  - Ygg2 7y ago
    > Or we could go back to the concept of content-agnostic neutral platforms Europe's Article 13 and its companion will make sure that NEVER happens.
    - kermitismyhero 7y ago
      The EU is so frustratingly inconsistent on internet-freedom matters. On the one hand there's a tendency towards very strong privacy protections through the GDPR and similar legislation/regulations. And on the other there's blatant publisher-protectionist insanity like Article 13. It's a mess.
      - otvsh 7y ago
        How is that inconsistent? Both things are heavy-handed.
        majewsky 7y ago
        By that same logic, > How is that inconsistent? Both things are a law.
        otvsh 7y ago
        Which supports my comment, because if it's a law it's heavy-handed. I was comparing it to having no laws.
- ykevinator 7y ago
  I think this is right, plus its not that profitable ( Reddit, snap chat etc)
notyourday 7y ago
The problem with adult content is that it is not monetizable via regular ads. This means that Tumblr is either: 1) a porn site with porn ads which is not a sexy business to be in -- at best it is a lifestyle business. 2) a site providing tools to small porn businesses ( i.e. creators of adult content ) for money which has a very limited growth and is a tough market 3) a site charging users for access to edgy content None of this so far has been a multi-billion dollar entreprise.
- huffmsa 7y ago
  They could take a look at what Nishimura did by splitting 4chan into a work and advertiser safe 4channel.org and the unsafe 4chan.org domains.
  - notyourday 7y ago
    The moment it is split into the "safe" and "unsafe" it becomes immediately obvious that "unsafe" loses gobs of money while "safe" makes a tiny bit of money, which is exactly why the non-safe content gets purged ( in case of Tumblr, badly -- there's still lots of porn on it ).
    - huffmsa 7y ago
      But purging the content meant 30% of their users left literally overnight. Those users probably consume some safe content.
      - notyourday 7y ago
        It is numbers: if the cost of servicing those users in a non-safe content is X, they are worth it only if the revenue received from them in a non-safe content Y is either ~X or > X. Unprofitable eyeballs leaving decreases the losses, making a business more valuable.
        ryan_j_naughton 7y ago
dyeje 7y ago
The problem with Tumblr has always been monetization. Unless you figure that out I don't see how it's going to e a unicorn.

cageface 7y ago

I think we're going to see companies start pulling back from hosting user generated content in general. Policing it is a massive headache and a guarantee of getting pulled into all the current political dogfighting.

Nextgrid 7y ago
Not a bad outcome if it encourages people to self-host.
- lostlogin 7y ago
  Self hosting as a service!
abraae 7y ago
"there's brass in muck" though. Someone - maybe not a FAANG but someone smaller and hungrier - will find a way to successfully and profitably steward UGC sites, just as Reddit seems to be able to.
- DC-3 7y ago
  > profitably steward UGC sites, just as Reddit seems to be able to I thought Reddit has never been profitable?
- throwaway55554 7y ago
  They better hurry before FAANG and Congress make it much more expensive to start up.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Creationer 7y ago
If those companies are based in the US, EU, or China, sure. The whole GDPR, Content Filtering thing seems like a massive opportunity for a savvy, unregulated South American, African or Asian company to take advantage of.
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  > The whole GDPR, Content Filtering Why lump privacy protections together with upload filters as if they're both bad. If you service doesn't abide by the GDPR, I'd try to avoid it. On the other hand, upload filters are a disaster and not at all comparable to GDPR, not in terms of what they do to the end-user, not the burden they place on service providers.
  - mises 7y ago
    Because it's not for you to pick and choose which laws you wish to follow. If a firm starts in the third world, it also likely cannot handle the regulatory burden of gdpr. For what it's worth, it would only have to be out side Europe. If a firm has no office in Europe, it would be difficult for Europe to enforce its laws. Extradition requires it be a crime in both countries.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  Then you need yours ads to also come from those areas, and I am not sure the ad dollars are there, especially if they are being shown to people in western countries.
  - asdff 7y ago
    Why can't a US company buy ad space on a South American website?
    - cortesoft 7y ago
      Because that American company would be held to American laws, and if the point of the South American company was to skirt American laws, that isn't going to work.
ralusek 7y ago
Or we could go back to the concept of content-agnostic neutral platforms, the best of which have self-moderation available to taste (e.g. subreddit subscriptions). There seems to be a growing reluctance to accept that a person or a group being allowed to exist on a platform does not in any way serve as an endorsement of that person or group. I believe that the copyright legislation in Europe, for example, has very little to do with copyright, and very much to do with holding platforms accountable for the content that their users produce. The net result is the platforms necessarily invoke nuance-less strategies for sanitizing the content according to a narrow band of what is acceptable.
- Ygg2 7y ago
  > Or we could go back to the concept of content-agnostic neutral platforms Europe's Article 13 and its companion will make sure that NEVER happens.
  - kermitismyhero 7y ago
    The EU is so frustratingly inconsistent on internet-freedom matters. On the one hand there's a tendency towards very strong privacy protections through the GDPR and similar legislation/regulations. And on the other there's blatant publisher-protectionist insanity like Article 13. It's a mess.
    - otvsh 7y ago
      How is that inconsistent? Both things are heavy-handed.
      - majewsky 7y ago
        By that same logic, > How is that inconsistent? Both things are a law.
        otvsh 7y ago
        Which supports my comment, because if it's a law it's heavy-handed. I was comparing it to having no laws.
ykevinator 7y ago
I think this is right, plus its not that profitable ( Reddit, snap chat etc)

notyourday 7y ago

The problem with adult content is that it is not monetizable via regular ads. This means that Tumblr is either: 1) a porn site with porn ads which is not a sexy business to be in -- at best it is a lifestyle business. 2) a site providing tools to small porn businesses ( i.e. creators of adult content ) for money which has a very limited growth and is a tough market 3) a site charging users for access to edgy content None of this so far has been a multi-billion dollar entreprise.

huffmsa 7y ago
They could take a look at what Nishimura did by splitting 4chan into a work and advertiser safe 4channel.org and the unsafe 4chan.org domains.
- notyourday 7y ago
  The moment it is split into the "safe" and "unsafe" it becomes immediately obvious that "unsafe" loses gobs of money while "safe" makes a tiny bit of money, which is exactly why the non-safe content gets purged ( in case of Tumblr, badly -- there's still lots of porn on it ).
  - huffmsa 7y ago
    But purging the content meant 30% of their users left literally overnight. Those users probably consume some safe content.
    - notyourday 7y ago
      It is numbers: if the cost of servicing those users in a non-safe content is X, they are worth it only if the revenue received from them in a non-safe content Y is either ~X or > X. Unprofitable eyeballs leaving decreases the losses, making a business more valuable.
      - ryan_j_naughton 7y ago

dyeje 7y ago

The problem with Tumblr has always been monetization. Unless you figure that out I don't see how it's going to e a unicorn.