4 ms·

Someone remind me why they can't just provide a dump to the IA? Is there any reason against doing this?

• colejohnson66 7y ago
  It cost money and provides them no benefit (besides good will).
  • tpmx 7y ago
    Yeah, I guess they are a soulless company. This kind of thing would happen when there's at least someone who still cares.
    • lucideer 7y ago
      It's likely more about silos at scale. There's likely plenty who care, in unrelated sections of the hydra
    • sodosopa 7y ago
      You’re saying that like most companies and VCs are not ambiguous soulless organizations. You can’t succeed on good vibes and prayers, there isn’t a god nor souls. Why should an organization support something they own when most people abandoned a platform and had years to archive and move elsewhere? Content is a garden, you plant a seed. If the land is barren why would you not move your seeds and seedlings elsewhere?
      • tomc1985 7y ago
        People didn't "abandon" the platform, it was still alive and useful to many. This business-based attitude of maximization and complete disregard for the long tail is exactly the reason business interests are killing the internet as we know/knew it. A garden left fallow still hosts an abundance of life > there isn’t a god nor souls. You don't know that, you only believe it. Just like the other believers. Plus, soulless is an adjective, not a statement of fact. There is very little reason for Yahoo not to be good stewards here. It's the difference between sportsmanship and cravenness.
      • StuffedParrot 7y ago
        > Why should an organization support something they own when most people abandoned a platform and had years to archive and move elsewhere? Organizations exist in a wider community and have multiple vested interests in its general health—the need for spending customers, need to attract talent, the need for stability and (in some cases like this one) culture to draw eyes. Negotiating these is much easier if they don’t act oblivious to the needs of their communities—and in this case, communities that they built. The massive value that they are no longer interested in maintaining because they can’t/won’t monetize any further (ok, fine) when compared to the tiny level of investment for letting the data continue to have value elsewhere is pathetically shortsighted, if not intentional. Granted days at yahoo may indeed be so dire that this is the kind of quality you get out of a slowly liquidating company.
    • vanadium 7y ago
      When you think “Yahoo” today, you need to think “Oath” and “Verizon”. The Yahoo of yesterday certainly isn’t the same as today. Which is sad, because the old Yahoo would have probably been much more sympathetic.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
• Eikon 7y ago
  It’s a huge liability which would make this terribly dumb. That’s also why it would be crazy of them to officially allow “archive accounts”. That’s pathway to lawsuits 101 if illegal content is present or even content that some user will ultimately argue that what they published publicly was private, see the Gmane case (was a mailing list archive) where the owner consistently got cease and desist letters or even formal notices from foreign governments about content that was in the archive. Guess what will happen with a large company such as yahoo where there’s a financial incentive to sue too?
  • ineedasername 7y ago
    Don't they have the exact same liability for the content while it was still live and active? What's different here?
    • tpmx 7y ago
      In the well-structured Groups: nothing.
  • dghughes 7y ago
    > if illegal content is present... Pretty sure it's not "if" but definitely.