2 ms·
> But I can understand why they made the change they did. The data was being abused. Depends how you see it - if you see it as 'their' data (legally true) or i
by Closi 2y ago
> But I can understand why they made the change they did. The data was being abused.
Depends how you see it - if you see it as 'their' data (legally true) or if you see it as user content (how their users would likely see it).
If you see it as 'user content', they are actually selling the data to be abused by one company, rather than stopping it being abused at all.
From a commercial 'lets sell user data and make a profit' perspective I get it, although does seem short-sighted to decide to effectively de-list yourself from alternative search engines (guess they just got enough cash to make it worth their while).
- Ajedi32 2y ago> if you see it as 'their' data (legally true) Is that actually true? Reddit may indeed have a license to use that data (derived from their ToS), but I very much doubt they actually own the copyright to it. If I write a comment on Reddit, then copy-paste it somewhere else, can Reddit sue me for copyright infringement?
- jedberg 2y agoThey own a non-exclusive worldwide right to it. You own the copyright, they have a license to use it however they see fit.
- account42 2y ago> They own a non-exclusive worldwide right to it. They demand that right. That doesn't mean they actually have a right to use the content in ways that are not directly required for the operation of the website or that are otherwise surprising to the average user. Putting something in the TOS doesn't always make it a valid contract.
- passwordoops 2y agoEnough cash or enough data on hand to show the majority of traffic comes from the search monopoly