3 ms·
I'd suggest that freenode's arguments seem to be fairly hollow given ... The point is, isn't this entirely their perfectly reasonable prerogative as free actor
by ankhmoop 17y ago
I'd suggest that freenode's arguments seem to be fairly hollow given ...
The point is, isn't this entirely their perfectly reasonable prerogative as free actors? Given that my own minimal channel 'work-load' has increased due to Mibbit, I'm inclined to take their position at face value.
However, if I were to entertain the notion of a secret plot for IRC monetization, I still wouldn't begrudge them that choice.
... freenode as a network is populated by tech savvy users and if they want to cause strife on the network, then the client they use wont make much different, they will find a way.
Mibbit's user base is relatively self-selecting. I don't believe it's inconceivable that the Mibbit user base is much more inclined to cause strife.
Whenever I go hiking in a relatively populated area, I always am bemused at how litter and graffiti disappears just a mile or so down from the trail head -- it seems that anyone willing to leave behind beer cans and spraypaint trees is also generally unwilling to walk more than a couple miles to do it.
- pyre 17y ago> However, if I were to entertain the notion of a secret plot for IRC monetization, I still wouldn't begrudge them that choice. I think people are taking issue with them being secretive about it. "We're banning Mibbit users because they abuse our network" vs "We're banning Mibbit users because we want them to use our client instead so that we can make money" are a little different from each other. If the latter is true, then they should at least be open about it.
- ankhmoop 17y agoOpenness is preferable, but there is absolutely no direct evidence to support the conclusion that they wish to monetize Freenode via web chat -- the timing is only circumstantial.