4 ms·
The point isn't to change history and remove it from the internets, the point is to not be a dick. You can't delete things on the internet- content is mirrored
by colinplamondon 16y ago
The point isn't to change history and remove it from the internets, the point is to not be a dick.
You can't delete things on the internet- content is mirrored, and popular posts like that are quoted, copied, and scraped across the internet. There's no risk of the post disappearing.
However, when they're in a meeting with the head of Match and their team, it'd be pretty dickish to keep the post up. It's rude. Removing it removes friction between the teams, is a nice peace offering, and in the end changes nothing- the post is instantly mirrored.
- dkarl 16y agoSquelching disagreement in the name of civility is not a good way to run a business, and they probably know that. Removing a widely-read criticism of Match.com before more people see it, however, does make commercial sense. It is not the kind of explosive secret that must be contained completely to be contained at all; taking it down from OkCupid's site means it will only be available on lower-profile, lower-traffic sites, and fewer people will read it in the future.
- martey 16y agoThe post is from last April. If I click on any hyperlink to the post made between last April and last week, I instead get redirected to OKCupid's blog homepage, which does not have the article. If removing the article "changed nothing", it would still be up. The idea was to make it harder for people to find the article. Sure, someone who realizes that the article was purposely removed and that there are a multitude of copies hosted on other sites will be able to find it, but others (perhaps with less technical acumen) will not.
- smackfu 16y agoWell, either way the post exists. Now this way, it is getting attention for existing and for being squelched. Twice the press! Bravo.