I think the media companies have been abusing the DMCA to go after people who link to pirated material. also, I'm starting to suspect world is trying to get funding because they're trying to "clean" the site up in exactly the way banks/VCs require for loans. it's a conservative interpretation of the law, especially the recent rounds that purported to go after human trafficking but actually forced major websites to take down anything remotely objectionable.
I'm starting to suspect world is trying to get funding because they're trying to "clean" the site up in exactly the way banks/VCs require for loans.
If that's true they're idiots. It's not even fucking necessary. All the social media VCs deliberately take the most neutral stance possible for the LARGEST possible userbases. Did reddit? Did any other social media site do that? Fuck no they didn't. They viewed them as user sources and valuable towards growth. It's literally the opposite of what every VC funded group does.
The cleanup only happens before an IPO. During VC funding companies are always as free as they can possibly be.
yeah, that's the part that confuses me. whatever it is, it's another stupid decision in a series of stupid decisions, and hopefully it just kills the instance.
"Wow, Blockbuster sucks because I have to drive to a physical store. I know, let's open up another brick-and-mortar store that's exactly like Blockbuster minus the name recognition. That'll show 'em!"
I think the media companies have been abusing the DMCA to go after people who link to pirated material. also, I'm starting to suspect world is trying to get funding because they're trying to "clean" the site up in exactly the way banks/VCs require for loans. it's a conservative interpretation of the law, especially the recent rounds that purported to go after human trafficking but actually forced major websites to take down anything remotely objectionable.
Ahh they're trying to sell out. Gross.
Wasn't the admin of .world one of the ones who went into the NDA'd cocksucking meetups with Meta?
🤣🤣🤣🤣
If that's true they're idiots. It's not even fucking necessary. All the social media VCs deliberately take the most neutral stance possible for the LARGEST possible userbases. Did reddit? Did any other social media site do that? Fuck no they didn't. They viewed them as user sources and valuable towards growth. It's literally the opposite of what every VC funded group does.
The cleanup only happens before an IPO. During VC funding companies are always as free as they can possibly be.
yeah, that's the part that confuses me. whatever it is, it's another stupid decision in a series of stupid decisions, and hopefully it just kills the instance.
"Wow, Blockbuster sucks because I have to drive to a physical store. I know, let's open up another brick-and-mortar store that's exactly like Blockbuster minus the name recognition. That'll show 'em!"