3 ms·

And yet they're too broke and destitute to continue API access...

• adrr 3y ago
  That was more of a decision to stop all the 3rd party clients to capture more ad revenue.
  • rglullis 3y ago
    It can be justifiable, but it doesn't mean that is right or ethical.
    • adrr 3y ago
      Business isn't ethical unless its a bcorp or a benefit corporation. They have one guiding principle, to make money for their shareholders.
      • rglullis 3y ago
        This is the type of bullshit that psychopaths use to justify their actions. No company is entitled to their business model, especially if they can only "capture value" by destroying the competition and/or stopping others from creating value on their own. Having a "guiding principle" does not mean that other principles should be ignored. Go ahead and focus on making money, but do not use that as an excuse to become a rent-seeking parasite on the rest of society.
        • adrr 3y ago
          This is literally US law and has been around forever. Here's an example from 1919. Ford tried to take their excess profits to give employees raises and reduce the price of their cars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
          • rglullis 3y ago
            If you bothered to read the footnotes of the wikipedia page, you'll see: Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate. The business judgment rule [which was also upheld in this decision] protects many decisions that deviate from this standard. This is one reading of Dodge. If this is all the case is about, however, it isn't that interesting.