4 ms·

True. This is only going to get worse unless technical people in these companies put a foot down. Maintainers do not have the resources to pay for a legal defe

True. This is only going to get worse unless technical people in these companies put a foot down. Maintainers do not have the resources to pay for a legal defence (companies know this), the community has shiny-object-syndrome and so it's up to internal employees to show resistance to these immoral policies.

joecot 3y ago
I think it's moreso that we need stronger decentralized options to be adopted. Google embraced both email with Gmail and jabber with Google talk. With Google talk they eventually reached a high enough usage rate that they closed it off, and effectively killed jabber, because there wasn't a large other service using it. With email though, they couldn't do that. They've slowly made it harder to interact with Gmail from outside Gmail. But email lives and can't be locked down. I think the protocol needs some work, but I think ActivityPub and the fediverse, with Mastodon and Lemmy and the like, are the way forward. Centralized sites will always have this problem, because they spend VC money for growth, and eventually those investors expect their money back. If a site is just one part of a large ecosystem, investors can't push the site to close off like this for a profit and control.
thethimble 3y ago
How do you juxtapose this with the fact that Reddit is still unprofitable? Engineers cost money. Venture capital isn’t an infinite well. The profitability of a business is a testament to its sustainability (or lack thereof). Persisting unprofitable structures is inherently unsustainable - despite how valuable they may be to users.
- joecot 3y ago
  If the point was to be profitable, I would get it. But that's not the point. The point is to lock down their users into their app so they have a more solid looking IPO. But the guy planning the IPO is repeatedly saying that reddit isn't profitable. If they wanted to make money, they could've charged an amount for the API that covered their costs and made them a profit. Or they could've required the apps to show their ads. Or they could've said that the free API access is now only for reddit gold subscribers. They're instead charging an amount for the API that clearly no app can afford, not negotiating at all, and locking nsfw content out of the API (it's already locked out of the mobile site). The point is to lock down the users. Not profit, at least not right now.
- smashah 3y ago
  I reject any premise that free/reasonable programmatic access is dichotomous to profitability. Just as Devs are forced to resolve bugs in their code, business people should sort out the bugs in their balance sheet. These decisions are being made now not due to profitability concerns, they're being made due to the lack of backlash from the tech community and laziness. "Oh? Elon start charging extortionate rates for the heavily restricted API & Zuck gets away with throwing his legal weight around at OSS Devs and nobody bats an eye? Cool, we'll do the same thing!"

joecot 3y ago

I think it's moreso that we need stronger decentralized options to be adopted. Google embraced both email with Gmail and jabber with Google talk. With Google talk they eventually reached a high enough usage rate that they closed it off, and effectively killed jabber, because there wasn't a large other service using it. With email though, they couldn't do that. They've slowly made it harder to interact with Gmail from outside Gmail. But email lives and can't be locked down. I think the protocol needs some work, but I think ActivityPub and the fediverse, with Mastodon and Lemmy and the like, are the way forward. Centralized sites will always have this problem, because they spend VC money for growth, and eventually those investors expect their money back. If a site is just one part of a large ecosystem, investors can't push the site to close off like this for a profit and control.

thethimble 3y ago

How do you juxtapose this with the fact that Reddit is still unprofitable? Engineers cost money. Venture capital isn’t an infinite well. The profitability of a business is a testament to its sustainability (or lack thereof). Persisting unprofitable structures is inherently unsustainable - despite how valuable they may be to users.

joecot 3y ago
If the point was to be profitable, I would get it. But that's not the point. The point is to lock down their users into their app so they have a more solid looking IPO. But the guy planning the IPO is repeatedly saying that reddit isn't profitable. If they wanted to make money, they could've charged an amount for the API that covered their costs and made them a profit. Or they could've required the apps to show their ads. Or they could've said that the free API access is now only for reddit gold subscribers. They're instead charging an amount for the API that clearly no app can afford, not negotiating at all, and locking nsfw content out of the API (it's already locked out of the mobile site). The point is to lock down the users. Not profit, at least not right now.
smashah 3y ago
I reject any premise that free/reasonable programmatic access is dichotomous to profitability. Just as Devs are forced to resolve bugs in their code, business people should sort out the bugs in their balance sheet. These decisions are being made now not due to profitability concerns, they're being made due to the lack of backlash from the tech community and laziness. "Oh? Elon start charging extortionate rates for the heavily restricted API & Zuck gets away with throwing his legal weight around at OSS Devs and nobody bats an eye? Cool, we'll do the same thing!"