You and some other commenters seemed to have only read the "Facebook tried to acu-hire you" part. You're missing the point. The important part of the post is t

You and some other commenters seemed to have only read the "Facebook tried to acu-hire you" part. You're missing the point. The important part of the post is the latter half, which is consistent with his recently blog posts about this thesis: "My thesis is that if you purport to be a platform, your business model needs to reflect your platform-ness. Because if you instead have an ad business model, and you’re not making enough money, you can end up slaughtering your ecosystem." - Dalton http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/30/dalton-caldwell-on-app-nets-plan-to-build-a-dependable-ad-free-version-of-twitter-tctv/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/30/dalton-caldwell-on-app-nets... This blog post is a continuation of that theme, wherein Facebook, a social media company platform, screwed with the user and 3rd party dev eco system[1] due to bad incentives[2] caused by a search for ad-revenue[3]. The paragraph here illustrates the connection: [1] "Mark, I know for a fact that my experience was not an isolated incident. Several other startup founders & Facebook employees have told me that what I experienced was part of a systematic M&A “formula”. " - Dalton [2] "I don’t think you or your employees are bad people. I just think you constructed a business that has financial motivations that are not in-line with users & developers." - Dalton [3] "Strangely, your “platform developer relations” executive made no attempt to defend my position. Rather, he explained that he was recently given ownership of App Center, and that because of new ad units they were building, he was now responsible for over $1B/year in ad revenue. The execs in the room made clear that the success of my product would be an impediment to your ad revenue financial goals, and thus even offering me the chance to be acquired was a noble and kind move on their part." - Dalton HN lately has been a lot of people picking out one part of the article, because it incenses some "sensibility" on their part, when it doesn't have anything to do with the main point of the OP, and the come back to HN to rant about it. And poor Dalton tried real hard to be clear by linking to all the stuff he was referring to also.