Verizon reportedly seeking to sell Tumblr(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Verizon reportedly seeking to sell Tumblr
https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/02/verizon-reportedly-seeking-to-sell-tumblr/
169 comments
https://mamot.fr/system/media_attachments/files/001/582/923/...
Classic comic from years ago
Classic comic from years ago
That's good.
I'll have to use that when talking about our country's (UK) decision to force everyone going onto a porn site to provide ID
> Using child porn as a pretext to justify a puritanical purge of all erotic content is absolutely obnoxious IMO.
And not what Tumblr did - their erotic content ban was under way before the CP snafu got them temporarily kicked out of the iOS App Store. Consensus is that it saves them from SESTA-FOSTA legal troubles.
And not what Tumblr did - their erotic content ban was under way before the CP snafu got them temporarily kicked out of the iOS App Store. Consensus is that it saves them from SESTA-FOSTA legal troubles.
Ironically, and as someone who doesn't really "get" Tumblr, this is also one of those big backfiring things too.
No longer can you see a nipple on Tumblr (well, you can, but that seems like what they're going for in blocking content), but a few errant clicks can easily find you in hardcore Tumblr bestiality territory that's apparently survived unscathed.
No longer can you see a nipple on Tumblr (well, you can, but that seems like what they're going for in blocking content), but a few errant clicks can easily find you in hardcore Tumblr bestiality territory that's apparently survived unscathed.
How is it any different to Reddit though ?
Plenty of porn subreddits around that could be used for sex trafficking particularly private ones.
Plenty of porn subreddits around that could be used for sex trafficking particularly private ones.
The mods on porn subs generally abide and enforce the rules from what I've seen. Plus in sheer numbers terms there's a lot fewer subreddits than there were tumblr's, practically speaking you could actually have a team of people keeping an eye on subreddits in a way that would probably be impossible with tumblr due to sheer volume.
> Plus in sheer numbers terms there's a lot fewer subreddits than there were tumblr's
Fewer, and lower discoverability. If you ban a sub, the mods have to bother registering a new one, and if you ban the mods too I believe they'll need to 'break in' new accounts to do that. Once they do, it'll just be an empty sub sitting there passively until they promote it on other subs (where it'll draw reports) or on other sites (which is a hassle). And without active moderation, spam users destroy spam subs by overwhelming their intentional content.
On tumblr, a new account just takes a new email, and they can be 'promoted' easily because following real users or reblogging their content with ads sends them notifications. It's pretty much the ideal structure for automation-friendly spam.
Fewer, and lower discoverability. If you ban a sub, the mods have to bother registering a new one, and if you ban the mods too I believe they'll need to 'break in' new accounts to do that. Once they do, it'll just be an empty sub sitting there passively until they promote it on other subs (where it'll draw reports) or on other sites (which is a hassle). And without active moderation, spam users destroy spam subs by overwhelming their intentional content.
On tumblr, a new account just takes a new email, and they can be 'promoted' easily because following real users or reblogging their content with ads sends them notifications. It's pretty much the ideal structure for automation-friendly spam.
Reddit also has a policy of banning unmoderated NSFW subreddits: https://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/a5xz9b/a_word_on_u...
They are also quarantining a lot of subs that have content advertisers don't like and quarantined subs don't show ads AFAIK.
No NSFW reddit subs show ads anymore, quarantined or otherwise:
https://www.reddit.com/r/redditads/comments/bdwlin/update_to...
https://www.reddit.com/r/redditads/comments/bdwlin/update_to...
>And not what Tumblr did - their erotic content ban was under way before the CP snafu got them temporarily kicked out of the iOS App Store.
They got kicked off the app store in november, and moved to ban all porn in december. They might have been planning this all along, but I've seen no evidence for that.
They got kicked off the app store in november, and moved to ban all porn in december. They might have been planning this all along, but I've seen no evidence for that.
They were planning to remove adult content long before that, and the iOs ban largely served to speed up their timeline. At least, that's the story from some ex-staff who talked to Vox after the news broke: https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/12/4/18126112/tumblr-porn...
Did SESTA-FOSTA actually accomplish anything? Do we have numbers to show that it put a stop to sex trafficking?
Why was this legislation pushed through so quickly without any opposition like SOPA or PIPA?
I don't get the "why".
Who was behind this?
Why was this legislation pushed through so quickly without any opposition like SOPA or PIPA?
I don't get the "why".
Who was behind this?
It definitely made things worse.
"New statistics shared by the San Francisco police show... sex trafficking shot up 170 percent in 2018." https://www.dailydot.com/irl/increase-sex-trafficking-sesta-... They claim it's just improved reporting because of increased outreach.
"DiAngelo says she received calls from women who are suicidal because they’ve been forced to work on the streets and return to dangerous pimps." https://www.kalw.org/post/one-year-federal-law-curb-sex-traf...
"Breyer estimated that there were about double or triple the usual number of workers seeking assistance." https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/1/17306486/sex-work-online-f...
"online private group chats where sex workers could share survival strategies and harm reduction techniques to stay safe have also disappeared" https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/anti-s... (Banner image kinda NSFW)
Here's an actual survey of sex workers in Seattle. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1KBsVBQh7EsRexAyZacaf... (results start on slide 7)
And it's had effects internationally. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/sex/sex-work...
"New statistics shared by the San Francisco police show... sex trafficking shot up 170 percent in 2018." https://www.dailydot.com/irl/increase-sex-trafficking-sesta-... They claim it's just improved reporting because of increased outreach.
"DiAngelo says she received calls from women who are suicidal because they’ve been forced to work on the streets and return to dangerous pimps." https://www.kalw.org/post/one-year-federal-law-curb-sex-traf...
"Breyer estimated that there were about double or triple the usual number of workers seeking assistance." https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/1/17306486/sex-work-online-f...
"online private group chats where sex workers could share survival strategies and harm reduction techniques to stay safe have also disappeared" https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/anti-s... (Banner image kinda NSFW)
Here's an actual survey of sex workers in Seattle. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1KBsVBQh7EsRexAyZacaf... (results start on slide 7)
And it's had effects internationally. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/sex/sex-work...
Sex worker advocates were nearly united against SESTA/FOSTA. No one listened to them. This conflation of prostitution and sex trafficking has gotten really out of hand.
[deleted]
I always suspected that the ban was partly based on the fact that porn content was driving a ton of bandwidth that was not monetizable. Or at least not in any way the decision makers saw as feasible without getting into legal trouble...
That can be more than just suspicion - it was confirmed by insiders after the announcement. The ban had apparently been in the works for some time, and the iOs action just provoked them to move up the timeline. (Which also explains the decision to release an untrained system and let real users serve as alpha testers.)
Oath apparently viewed the adult content as a nonstarter for monetization and a general threat to advertiser relationships. Since both the site's design and its massive engineering flaws meant adult content showed up anywhere, it was even driving advertisers away from not-necessarily-adult content like user feeds, and there was some concern it was even keeping user counts down.
Of course, the entire plan here was nuts. Oath apparently wanted to double user counts by summer 2019, even though growth was effectively zero and there was no plan to fix that. They confused an adult content problem with a spam problem, and so the spam is still going strong. And the monetization outlook is genuinely hilarious: Oath intended to ban adult content as a step to monetizing the site's fandom and social justice communities. Apparently nobody noticed that the fandom stuff was the porn they were banning, or that a solid 20% of all users were going to be affected.
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/12/4/18126112/tumblr-porn...
Oath apparently viewed the adult content as a nonstarter for monetization and a general threat to advertiser relationships. Since both the site's design and its massive engineering flaws meant adult content showed up anywhere, it was even driving advertisers away from not-necessarily-adult content like user feeds, and there was some concern it was even keeping user counts down.
Of course, the entire plan here was nuts. Oath apparently wanted to double user counts by summer 2019, even though growth was effectively zero and there was no plan to fix that. They confused an adult content problem with a spam problem, and so the spam is still going strong. And the monetization outlook is genuinely hilarious: Oath intended to ban adult content as a step to monetizing the site's fandom and social justice communities. Apparently nobody noticed that the fandom stuff was the porn they were banning, or that a solid 20% of all users were going to be affected.
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/12/4/18126112/tumblr-porn...
The sad thing is that I don't think it actually did anything to fix any of the child abuse problem tumblr - and all modern social media sties - actually has. Though tumblr dying will prevent their particularly boneheaded abuse problems from remaining relevant, so perhaps in a way it did fix it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Simple_Guy(2)
Be sure to put in a bid!
Tumblr is an absolute goldmine of pure original content unavailable anywhere else.
A savvy enterprise that acquired it should re-allow adult content with however many filters they like to make amends with the community and devote a while to redo UX and quality of life. Content creators will absolutely come back, as no proper competitor ever rose in the current vacuum yet. After that it could turn into a unicorn in less than a year.
A savvy enterprise that acquired it should re-allow adult content with however many filters they like to make amends with the community and devote a while to redo UX and quality of life. Content creators will absolutely come back, as no proper competitor ever rose in the current vacuum yet. After that it could turn into a unicorn in less than a year.
I think we're going to see companies start pulling back from hosting user generated content in general. Policing it is a massive headache and a guarantee of getting pulled into all the current political dogfighting.
"there's brass in muck" though. Someone - maybe not a FAANG but someone smaller and hungrier - will find a way to successfully and profitably steward UGC sites, just as Reddit seems to be able to.
> profitably steward UGC sites, just as Reddit seems to be able to
I thought Reddit has never been profitable?
I thought Reddit has never been profitable?
They better hurry before FAANG and Congress make it much more expensive to start up.
[deleted]
If those companies are based in the US, EU, or China, sure.
The whole GDPR, Content Filtering thing seems like a massive opportunity for a savvy, unregulated South American, African or Asian company to take advantage of.
The whole GDPR, Content Filtering thing seems like a massive opportunity for a savvy, unregulated South American, African or Asian company to take advantage of.
Then you need yours ads to also come from those areas, and I am not sure the ad dollars are there, especially if they are being shown to people in western countries.
> The whole GDPR, Content Filtering
Why lump privacy protections together with upload filters as if they're both bad. If you service doesn't abide by the GDPR, I'd try to avoid it. On the other hand, upload filters are a disaster and not at all comparable to GDPR, not in terms of what they do to the end-user, not the burden they place on service providers.
Why lump privacy protections together with upload filters as if they're both bad. If you service doesn't abide by the GDPR, I'd try to avoid it. On the other hand, upload filters are a disaster and not at all comparable to GDPR, not in terms of what they do to the end-user, not the burden they place on service providers.
Because it's not for you to pick and choose which laws you wish to follow. If a firm starts in the third world, it also likely cannot handle the regulatory burden of gdpr.
For what it's worth, it would only have to be out side Europe. If a firm has no office in Europe, it would be difficult for Europe to enforce its laws. Extradition requires it be a crime in both countries.
For what it's worth, it would only have to be out side Europe. If a firm has no office in Europe, it would be difficult for Europe to enforce its laws. Extradition requires it be a crime in both countries.
Or we could go back to the concept of content-agnostic neutral platforms, the best of which have self-moderation available to taste (e.g. subreddit subscriptions).
There seems to be a growing reluctance to accept that a person or a group being allowed to exist on a platform does not in any way serve as an endorsement of that person or group. I believe that the copyright legislation in Europe, for example, has very little to do with copyright, and very much to do with holding platforms accountable for the content that their users produce. The net result is the platforms necessarily invoke nuance-less strategies for sanitizing the content according to a narrow band of what is acceptable.
There seems to be a growing reluctance to accept that a person or a group being allowed to exist on a platform does not in any way serve as an endorsement of that person or group. I believe that the copyright legislation in Europe, for example, has very little to do with copyright, and very much to do with holding platforms accountable for the content that their users produce. The net result is the platforms necessarily invoke nuance-less strategies for sanitizing the content according to a narrow band of what is acceptable.
> Or we could go back to the concept of content-agnostic neutral platforms
Europe's Article 13 and its companion will make sure that NEVER happens.
Europe's Article 13 and its companion will make sure that NEVER happens.
> Europe's Article 13 and its companion will make sure that NEVER happens.
The EU audience merely has to be willing to tolerate the latency of being served content from outside of the EU.
The only answer that the EU has to that approach, is to institute a Chinese style blockade and limit access to the Internet (it would become something else, the EUnet, with restricted access to the Internet). The question is whether EU citizens will tolerate that next, required step. Without an EU wall, they can't stop the trivial dodging of their laws by setting up services outside of their jurisdiction and serving to EU users. The US market is profitable enough to trivially support serving to EU users without any regard for making money there (Facebook could operate profitably with 2.2 billion global monthly actives with only monetizing the US market; Google could serve its search engine to a global audience profitably by only monetizing the US).
The EU audience merely has to be willing to tolerate the latency of being served content from outside of the EU.
The only answer that the EU has to that approach, is to institute a Chinese style blockade and limit access to the Internet (it would become something else, the EUnet, with restricted access to the Internet). The question is whether EU citizens will tolerate that next, required step. Without an EU wall, they can't stop the trivial dodging of their laws by setting up services outside of their jurisdiction and serving to EU users. The US market is profitable enough to trivially support serving to EU users without any regard for making money there (Facebook could operate profitably with 2.2 billion global monthly actives with only monetizing the US market; Google could serve its search engine to a global audience profitably by only monetizing the US).
The EU is so frustratingly inconsistent on internet-freedom matters. On the one hand there's a tendency towards very strong privacy protections through the GDPR and similar legislation/regulations. And on the other there's blatant publisher-protectionist insanity like Article 13. It's a mess.
How is that inconsistent? Both things are heavy-handed.
I find them inconsistent from an individual-liberty perspective. I see no contradiction between opposition to Article 13 and support for the GDPR.
On the one hand, Article 13 compromises the online publishing capability of anyone (either individuals or businesses) who lack the ability to hire both large legal departments and large developer teams who can implement content filters. It entrenches the power of the 800lb media gorillas and kneecaps everyone else. It also enables censorship systems by crippling the capability of individuals and small hosting businesses to publish material at will.
But on the other hand, the GDPR is a law with serious teeth that takes power back from those 800lb gorillas that rely on unethical bulk-surveillance business models. It empowers individuals to regain some privacy should they choose to exercise that power. Businesses with ethical user-fee business models have nothing to fear from the GDPR, because for them, the protection of customer data from advertisers isn't an undue hardship. It's a core feature of their service. And let's not forget that the GDPR actually has quite broad exceptions for news agencies. The GDPR can't be used as a censorship tool in the same way that Article 13 can.
On the one hand, Article 13 compromises the online publishing capability of anyone (either individuals or businesses) who lack the ability to hire both large legal departments and large developer teams who can implement content filters. It entrenches the power of the 800lb media gorillas and kneecaps everyone else. It also enables censorship systems by crippling the capability of individuals and small hosting businesses to publish material at will.
But on the other hand, the GDPR is a law with serious teeth that takes power back from those 800lb gorillas that rely on unethical bulk-surveillance business models. It empowers individuals to regain some privacy should they choose to exercise that power. Businesses with ethical user-fee business models have nothing to fear from the GDPR, because for them, the protection of customer data from advertisers isn't an undue hardship. It's a core feature of their service. And let's not forget that the GDPR actually has quite broad exceptions for news agencies. The GDPR can't be used as a censorship tool in the same way that Article 13 can.
I think those days are sadly long past. As long as the idea pervades that opinions we don't agree with are "dangerous", I can't see platform providers not being held to task to remove undesirables.
It appears that the people who pay the bills (advertisers) don't want that sort of platform. And the people who do want that sort of platform are unwilling to pay the bills.
I think this is right, plus its not that profitable ( Reddit, snap chat etc)
The problem with adult content is that it is not monetizable via regular ads. This means that Tumblr is either:
1) a porn site with porn ads which is not a sexy business to be in -- at best it is a lifestyle business.
2) a site providing tools to small porn businesses ( i.e. creators of adult content ) for money which has a very limited growth and is a tough market
3) a site charging users for access to edgy content
None of this so far has been a multi-billion dollar entreprise.
1) a porn site with porn ads which is not a sexy business to be in -- at best it is a lifestyle business.
2) a site providing tools to small porn businesses ( i.e. creators of adult content ) for money which has a very limited growth and is a tough market
3) a site charging users for access to edgy content
None of this so far has been a multi-billion dollar entreprise.
They could take a look at what Nishimura did by splitting 4chan into a work and advertiser safe 4channel.org and the unsafe 4chan.org domains.
The moment it is split into the "safe" and "unsafe" it becomes immediately obvious that "unsafe" loses gobs of money while "safe" makes a tiny bit of money, which is exactly why the non-safe content gets purged ( in case of Tumblr, badly -- there's still lots of porn on it ).
But purging the content meant 30% of their users left literally overnight.
Those users probably consume some safe content.
Those users probably consume some safe content.
What's interesting is that the content doesn't seem purged. All the accounts with porn just have their blogs hidden, but like 90% of the images and such are still hosted and can be directly accessed. Someone could easily reverse this and slap on monetization features, because even today there doesn't seem to be any decent tumblr replacement, not reddit, not twitter. That seems unlikely to happen though.
That is in fact exactly what happened. The implementation was rushed and/or inept to the point it's near-impossible for me to believe this was something they were already working on:
* Tumblrs that weren't marked adult got marked as such by their new algorithm. This included the text-only official announcement post itself.
* The actual block was done by turning on safe mode for all users, and removing the toggle from the settings page. For a short time, some people were supposedly able to turn in back off by adding that setting back to the POST manually.
* The setting doesn't affect your dashboard, so you can still see new posts by those you follow, even though there's no way to browse to their page directly.
* Tumblrs that weren't marked adult got marked as such by their new algorithm. This included the text-only official announcement post itself.
* The actual block was done by turning on safe mode for all users, and removing the toggle from the settings page. For a short time, some people were supposedly able to turn in back off by adding that setting back to the POST manually.
* The setting doesn't affect your dashboard, so you can still see new posts by those you follow, even though there's no way to browse to their page directly.
That gets us back to Tumblr being a money losing enterprise. The question is what is a working strategy to monetize a massive user content driven platform where advertisers view on that content is somewhere between the gigantic landfill on fire and a nuclear waste.
Seems Pornhub is one solution after all, it sure solves the advertising problem... they just put up their own advertisements.
> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/05/pornh...
> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/05/pornh...
As I understand it (as a light Tumblr user, in areas adjacent to but almost entirely outside of the NSFW sections), a significant number of the porn blogs have, in fact, been deleted, as well as a significant number of blogs or posts on blogs that were flagged as porn by their egregiously terrible porn-finding algorithm, but were in fact nothing of the kind.
However, the porn spambots still keep popping up periodically, and there are still loads of Nazi/alt-right blogs that Tumblr doesn't seem to have any intention of doing anything about.
However, the porn spambots still keep popping up periodically, and there are still loads of Nazi/alt-right blogs that Tumblr doesn't seem to have any intention of doing anything about.
It is numbers: if the cost of servicing those users in a non-safe content is X, they are worth it only if the revenue received from them in a non-safe content Y is either ~X or > X.
Unprofitable eyeballs leaving decreases the losses, making a business more valuable.
Unprofitable eyeballs leaving decreases the losses, making a business more valuable.
Not if there is an ecosystem effect, and you need those people to ensure that all the safe content has enough producers, consumers, commenters, etc to make it a living, community and ecosystem.
Those effects did not work for Tumblr. Tumblr always lost money. That's exactly how it ended up in this situation.
4chan doesn't exist to make a profit though. It only needs to get enough money to keep the lights on.
Which makes it not a business and not valueable unless someone wants to fund it.
Most of Tumblr is not, and has never been, NSFW. The fact that the site permits such blogs to exist does not in any way mean that the vast majority of it could not easily support regular ads.
It shouldn't even be difficult for Tumblr to enforce a separation between the two—a hard requirement for any blog that hosts adult content to be marked as such, and blogs with adult content only get ads from advertisers who have explicitly indicated that they're OK with that.
Now, granted, it may still not be a multi-billion-dollar enterprise. I don't know much about the economics of ad impressions. But that doesn't mean it can't be profitable.
It shouldn't even be difficult for Tumblr to enforce a separation between the two—a hard requirement for any blog that hosts adult content to be marked as such, and blogs with adult content only get ads from advertisers who have explicitly indicated that they're OK with that.
Now, granted, it may still not be a multi-billion-dollar enterprise. I don't know much about the economics of ad impressions. But that doesn't mean it can't be profitable.
> Most of Tumblr is not, and has never been, NSFW. The fact that the site permits such blogs to exist does not in any way mean that the vast majority of it could not easily support regular ads.
Most of the cost and page views on Tumblr came from NSFW. Everything else was a really long tail. It costs more money to monetize the long tail than the long tail can be monetized for.
> It shouldn't even be difficult for Tumblr to enforce a separation between the two—a hard requirement for any blog that hosts adult content to be marked as such, and blogs with adult content only get ads from advertisers who have explicitly indicated that they're OK with that
Advertisers for non-explicit content to not want to be associated with non-clean content whatever that not clean content may be. Tucker Carlson is much cleaner than "daddybeatshisproperty" and there are successful campaigns to pull P&G and its likes ads from Fox News. Now imagine "Dirty Mouth, clean it up!" ad next to ... well... something something in your mouth. The screen caps of that would be on youtube in half and hour and on all TV channels by the evening news. There's no way Mars, Inc would be Ok with that hit and they are rather edgy in their commercials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxmkiy9txBE
> Now, granted, it may still not be a multi-billion-dollar enterprise. I don't know much about the economics of ad impressions. But that doesn't mean it can't be profitable.
Right. So it at most a lifestyle business, not a multi hundred million dollar operation.
P.S. Reality does not care about downvotes. Tumblr lost money since its inception because it cannot get enough ad money to coverts its costs. And it cannot get enough ad money because of its content, not because there's no ad money.
Most of the cost and page views on Tumblr came from NSFW. Everything else was a really long tail. It costs more money to monetize the long tail than the long tail can be monetized for.
> It shouldn't even be difficult for Tumblr to enforce a separation between the two—a hard requirement for any blog that hosts adult content to be marked as such, and blogs with adult content only get ads from advertisers who have explicitly indicated that they're OK with that
Advertisers for non-explicit content to not want to be associated with non-clean content whatever that not clean content may be. Tucker Carlson is much cleaner than "daddybeatshisproperty" and there are successful campaigns to pull P&G and its likes ads from Fox News. Now imagine "Dirty Mouth, clean it up!" ad next to ... well... something something in your mouth. The screen caps of that would be on youtube in half and hour and on all TV channels by the evening news. There's no way Mars, Inc would be Ok with that hit and they are rather edgy in their commercials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxmkiy9txBE
> Now, granted, it may still not be a multi-billion-dollar enterprise. I don't know much about the economics of ad impressions. But that doesn't mean it can't be profitable.
Right. So it at most a lifestyle business, not a multi hundred million dollar operation.
P.S. Reality does not care about downvotes. Tumblr lost money since its inception because it cannot get enough ad money to coverts its costs. And it cannot get enough ad money because of its content, not because there's no ad money.
> Most of the cost and page views on Tumblr came from NSFW.
Do you have sources for that? Because from what I know, I think that's unlikely.
Based on what's happened since December, it seems like the number is closer to 30%. Now, that's still quite significant, but it's a long way from "most".
> The screen caps of that would be on youtube in half and hour and on all TV channels by the evening news.
That also seems quite unlikely. It might make it to YouTube, but it's unlikely that it would make much of a stir; certainly not enough to get on the evening news.
> So it at most a lifestyle business, not a multi hundred million dollar operation.
Does that mean that it doesn't deserve to exist?
Do you have sources for that? Because from what I know, I think that's unlikely.
Based on what's happened since December, it seems like the number is closer to 30%. Now, that's still quite significant, but it's a long way from "most".
> The screen caps of that would be on youtube in half and hour and on all TV channels by the evening news.
That also seems quite unlikely. It might make it to YouTube, but it's unlikely that it would make much of a stir; certainly not enough to get on the evening news.
> So it at most a lifestyle business, not a multi hundred million dollar operation.
Does that mean that it doesn't deserve to exist?
> Do you have sources for that? Because from what I know, I think that's unlikely.
Hired a couple of their SREs
> Based on what's happened since December, it seems like the number is closer to 30%. Now, that's still quite significant, but it's a long way from "most".
Tumblr has a boatload of porn. They barely killed half of it if based on random samples some of their competitors did before and after the great purge. The biggest change is that they started to kill ability to re-share old porn content but re-uploaded copies of the same old porn still show up.
> That also seems quite unlikely. It might make it to YouTube, but it's unlikely that it would make much of a stir; certainly not enough to get on the evening news.
We see the outrage playing out daily in the news. If Pepsi ends up in a hot water with the ad featuring Kandall giving a soda to a cop one does not need to be a genius to predict what happens in a case of Orbits ad next to a porn video.
> Does that mean that it doesn't deserve to exist?
It deserving to exist is irrelevant. Someone needs to fund it or make enough money to make it worth to them.
Hired a couple of their SREs
> Based on what's happened since December, it seems like the number is closer to 30%. Now, that's still quite significant, but it's a long way from "most".
Tumblr has a boatload of porn. They barely killed half of it if based on random samples some of their competitors did before and after the great purge. The biggest change is that they started to kill ability to re-share old porn content but re-uploaded copies of the same old porn still show up.
> That also seems quite unlikely. It might make it to YouTube, but it's unlikely that it would make much of a stir; certainly not enough to get on the evening news.
We see the outrage playing out daily in the news. If Pepsi ends up in a hot water with the ad featuring Kandall giving a soda to a cop one does not need to be a genius to predict what happens in a case of Orbits ad next to a porn video.
> Does that mean that it doesn't deserve to exist?
It deserving to exist is irrelevant. Someone needs to fund it or make enough money to make it worth to them.
The problem with Tumblr has always been monetization. Unless you figure that out I don't see how it's going to e a unicorn.
I was pretty active on Tumblr in 2010 had thousands of followers when that was "big" back then and its sad they never asked for paid subscriptions with minor aesthetic features. I would of happily paid $5 a month to use my domain with my Tumblr blog instead they gave that away too. Charge for GIF avatar features. Charge to be able to have access to / or to post NSFW content.
This ads first mentality for profitability is stupid. Lastly throw in an ad here or there for different musicians under their respective tags if you want ads. Talk about contextual advertising that wouldnt bother me if I had seen it. Like maybe a band is doing a concert in my own bam!
The way I used Tumblr I may of paid $10 a month for a premium account if they just made it all the worthwhile. They also provide asset hosting for free. Come on!
This ads first mentality for profitability is stupid. Lastly throw in an ad here or there for different musicians under their respective tags if you want ads. Talk about contextual advertising that wouldnt bother me if I had seen it. Like maybe a band is doing a concert in my own bam!
The way I used Tumblr I may of paid $10 a month for a premium account if they just made it all the worthwhile. They also provide asset hosting for free. Come on!
Unfortunately targeted advertising appears to be the best way to maximize returns for massive, VC-backed social media platforms. Charging for stuff simply isn't as profitable. The numbers have been run before multiple times.
A lot of people in tech don't seem to realize how big the advertising business is. It was gigantic even before we came along. The behemoth has turned its attention from TV and print to online, but it's still a behemoth. The amount spent on advertising just in the US is more than Facebook's entire market cap, each year. It should hardly be a surprise that an industry that big can have a significant effect on web-based companies' profit models.
BTW, the finance industry is even bigger, and has a correspondingly larger effect on how the tech industry really works. I've even seen it said that Silicon Valley is basically just a (not so) well disguised extension of Wall Street, and it's not wrong.
BTW, the finance industry is even bigger, and has a correspondingly larger effect on how the tech industry really works. I've even seen it said that Silicon Valley is basically just a (not so) well disguised extension of Wall Street, and it's not wrong.
I was talking with Twitch's Director of Engineering about a year ago and he was saying that their ad revenue dwarfs their revenue earned directly from users (subscriptions and bits) by at least 10 to 1. I was amazed as I've seen how much people are willing to give away on that site.
My guess would be only a fraction of people participate. I watch a bit of Twitch, but for me, the chat might as well not exist. (edit: that isn't to say how important participation and communication are for building a community, they are)
Second, ads don't need payment methods. Kids and teenagers may not have debit or credit cards, but are a hugely valuable demographic that advertisers want to target. So as long as Twitch stays relevant to those audiences, ads will probably be quite valuable.
Second, ads don't need payment methods. Kids and teenagers may not have debit or credit cards, but are a hugely valuable demographic that advertisers want to target. So as long as Twitch stays relevant to those audiences, ads will probably be quite valuable.
Which is nuts when you think that something like ~70% of twitch users have an active ad-blocker.
Do advertisers know if their ad is getting blocked? I'd assume that they do but are being willfully ignorant about how ineffective adverts on the web really are. I mean who even clicks on an ad on the internet, Grandma?
I don't generally click the links, but if I see something I like, I'll google it or go directly to the site. As for if advertisers "see" their ad being blocked: it depends on the way the ad is being blocked / served. Most adblockers just blacklist certain web domains, so if a JS call is made to that domain it is blocked. The advertiser won't ever see it was blocked or have to pay for it being shown. The website owners are usually the ones hurt most by adblockers.
Twitch gets around this now by integrating the ads directly into the video stream before it even hits your browser, so there is no way for a simple ad-blocker that blacklists domains to tell when the stream is streaming an ad vs the actual content.
Most publishers put up with adblocking because most ad companies offer "set it and forget it" solutions. Just drop a piece of JS into their HTML and they start earning money. Eventually publishers will get their ads via a REST API or something (server side) and splice the ads directly into the HTML themselves, so that the ad-blocker won't know what is content and what is ads.
At that point, ad blockers just have to make their best guess at which HTML elements (div/span/etc.) contain ads by checking names, dimensions, and other features and deleting that element.
I think their might be laws that say you have to explicitly label ads or sponsored content as such, so that might make it easier.
Twitch gets around this now by integrating the ads directly into the video stream before it even hits your browser, so there is no way for a simple ad-blocker that blacklists domains to tell when the stream is streaming an ad vs the actual content.
Most publishers put up with adblocking because most ad companies offer "set it and forget it" solutions. Just drop a piece of JS into their HTML and they start earning money. Eventually publishers will get their ads via a REST API or something (server side) and splice the ads directly into the HTML themselves, so that the ad-blocker won't know what is content and what is ads.
At that point, ad blockers just have to make their best guess at which HTML elements (div/span/etc.) contain ads by checking names, dimensions, and other features and deleting that element.
I think their might be laws that say you have to explicitly label ads or sponsored content as such, so that might make it easier.
Doing neither is even less profitable.
Spotify and Pandora disagree.
> I would of
> I may of
https://www.perfect-english-grammar.com/could-have-should-ha...
https://www.perfect-english-grammar.com/could-have-should-ha...
You comment would have been more well-received if you explained the issue, rather than just linking a page that doesn't.
Anyway, it's "could/should/would have" which in its contracted form is "could've" / "should've" / "would've".
If you were going to only include a link, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/could-of-or-could-ha... would have been a better choice, for example.
Anyway, it's "could/should/would have" which in its contracted form is "could've" / "should've" / "would've".
If you were going to only include a link, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/could-of-or-could-ha... would have been a better choice, for example.
Sorry that English is my second language?
That comment trying to correct you is itself wrong.. It should be "may have" or "would have". It's a common grammar mistake that even native speakers make, I think because they learned the language "by ear".
[deleted]
Step 1: ban the thing the product you just bought makes all of its money from
Step 2: ????
Step 3: sell it for a loss!
Step 2: ????
Step 3: sell it for a loss!
I'm pretty sure Tumblr wasn't worth anything. Yahoo wrote off most of its value after they acquired it.
Tumblr was a rapidly growing social platform that had Facebook shitting their pants when Yahoo bought it from right under their noses. They followed up with some acquisitions of their own, some of which have been quite successful for them. Of course Yahoo ran this into the ground and never really had a coherent strategy to do anything productive with this. Yahoo destroyed quite a few perfectly good startups with active user bases that each were on clear paths to IPOs.
I'm pretty sure the Tumblr acquisition by Verizon was just part of some bigger deal that involved bailing out some of the investors with an 'exit'. Yahoo was imploding and that was inconvenient to a lot of investors. Companies like Verizon have plenty of money and lots of ties to the same investors. Many of which probably benefited from this kind of controlled demolition. It was never about salvaging something of value; just about bailing out investors. Verizon can absorb the loss. I doubt this will have big consequences for any of their leadership. The next phase in Tumblrs life will be hedgefunds stripping what remains of value. It's a dead company at this point. Anyone with a clue probably bailed before Yahoo sold out to Verizon and most of the rest probably left right after.
I'm pretty sure the Tumblr acquisition by Verizon was just part of some bigger deal that involved bailing out some of the investors with an 'exit'. Yahoo was imploding and that was inconvenient to a lot of investors. Companies like Verizon have plenty of money and lots of ties to the same investors. Many of which probably benefited from this kind of controlled demolition. It was never about salvaging something of value; just about bailing out investors. Verizon can absorb the loss. I doubt this will have big consequences for any of their leadership. The next phase in Tumblrs life will be hedgefunds stripping what remains of value. It's a dead company at this point. Anyone with a clue probably bailed before Yahoo sold out to Verizon and most of the rest probably left right after.
> I'm pretty sure the Tumblr acquisition by Verizon was just part of some bigger deal that involved bailing out some of the investors with an 'exit'.
The "bigger deal" was the sale of all of Yahoo's business to Verizon, which was an all-or-nothing-deal.
The "bigger deal" was the sale of all of Yahoo's business to Verizon, which was an all-or-nothing-deal.
To be fair, Tumblr was one of the more well known and probably more valuable bits that they got as part of that package. I believe e.g. Flickr was sold separately. As I understand it, Verizon has pretty much devalued the entire package already a few months ago: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/verizon-signals-its-y...
The worth of a large collection of shady pirated porn blogs is marginal. You can only host very cheap ads next to it and it devalues the rest of the site.
A great deal of the porn is, as I understand it, not pirated, but original content. It is, after all, something a significant percentage of the population naturally possesses the resources to create.
Out of curiosity is there any real evidence that there is a negative consequence for an advertiser marketing its brand on a porn/adult website? I'm a fairly well adjusted human being that also consumes pornography at times and i'm not sure I would personally be bothered with seeing an add for a luxury car brand or clothing designer (not-withstanding my general dislike of seeing any ad). I don't think it would influence my viewpoint of that brand one way or another (vs seeing it on any other site); but maybe subconsciously it would? Is there any actual research?
Hey, tax write off.
Might as well literally burn cash for that - still not a good idea.
can you write off loss due to cash fire?
The KLF would approve[1].
EDIT: I looked it up because I wasn't sure about the details. Man, what a rabbit hole. There is even a Wikipedia page about money burning and its legality in various jurisdictions[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Qu...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_burning
EDIT: I looked it up because I wasn't sure about the details. Man, what a rabbit hole. There is even a Wikipedia page about money burning and its legality in various jurisdictions[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Qu...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_burning
It's an asset like anything else, so AFAIK same profit and loss rules apply.
For a business that means yes, you can.
For individuals that means no, you can't, unless there's a special exception such as losing your cash in a federally declared disaster.
If you're both and the assets are mixed (e.g. operating budget and retirement account are both kept under your mattress), I imagine the IRS would presume the cash was personal and it'd be difficult to argue otherwise.
I'm not an accountant but have studied basic tax law. I only briefly Googled to make sure I'm not patently misrepresenting things, though.
For a business that means yes, you can.
For individuals that means no, you can't, unless there's a special exception such as losing your cash in a federally declared disaster.
If you're both and the assets are mixed (e.g. operating budget and retirement account are both kept under your mattress), I imagine the IRS would presume the cash was personal and it'd be difficult to argue otherwise.
I'm not an accountant but have studied basic tax law. I only briefly Googled to make sure I'm not patently misrepresenting things, though.
What about the carbon offset?
cuts down tree
Would anyone like to buy this nice stump?
Would anyone like to buy this nice stump?
Stump grinding is actually a big thing now. They make woodstove pellets from it, and mulch, among other things.
edit: I should add that it adds to the overall destruction of a forest ecosystem and I don't agree with it on large-scales.
edit: I should add that it adds to the overall destruction of a forest ecosystem and I don't agree with it on large-scales.
It depends if you also sell the land on which the stump is located. If yes, you could plant a new tree there
What has Verizon achieved with the AOL/Yahoo = Oath purchase?
Flickr gone. Tumblr gone.
A bunch of blogs?
A bunch of blogs?
Yahoo is still most likely an advertising cash cow.. a cow that is probably shrinking though. Wouldnt be surprised if they keep laying off Yahoo staff to make it as profitable as possible.
TechCrunch, HuffPost, Yahoo (News, Sports, Mail, Finance...), Engadget, Edgecast... Still some big stuff left. I think they are trimming the fat (big money losers) right now.
Mostly selling ads, but they are working on video too.
Mostly selling ads, but they are working on video too.
Classic. Telecom shouldn’t be messing around with owning social media websites. Sadly tumblr is burnt toast thanks to yahoo and other cruft
Hey yeah, doesn't the law prevent companies that are "telecommunications services" from also being "information services?"
You know what we need? A federal agency to enforce communications laws and stuff. Some sort of federal commission, having to do with communications.
You know what we need? A federal agency to enforce communications laws and stuff. Some sort of federal commission, having to do with communications.
Yahoo was pretty good stewards of the site however. I think Yahoo recognized the importance of the community at least.
Yahoo never monetized Tumblr, but I don't think they did anything particularly wrong with it.
Yahoo never monetized Tumblr, but I don't think they did anything particularly wrong with it.
Yahoo didn’t do anything because of their lack of ability by that point, not a virtue.
In the same way that didn’t stop Verizon..
In the same way that didn’t stop Verizon..
Anyone want to hazard a guess at how many hundred million dollars of Tumblr’s value was destroyed by the adult content ban?
There should be zero bonuses or incentive payments for the executive group that made this decision. The effect was predictable and widely forecast.
There should be zero bonuses or incentive payments for the executive group that made this decision. The effect was predictable and widely forecast.
If BuzzFeed is to be believed, Pornhub of all places has expressed interest: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/pornhub-i.... It seems weird until you realize they probably couldn’t do a worse job than Yahoo and Verizon did; at least they understand why people visit the site.
Pornhub is competent, "gets" Tumblr, and has the know-how when it comes to filtering porn. With how cheap they're going to get this, this could be a massive win for Pornhub.
Agreed. Seems like a no-brainer for PH if they have the cash.
Some of the issue with the current Tumblr is the removal of adult content - and everything else that went with it. Pornhub has experience with this sort of thing. Lots of it. The challenges of managing such a place are a bit less, I think.
Not only that, but pornhub (for the most part) has a somewhat different sort of reputation than Yahoo and Verizon. Yahoo has been dying for eons and verizon is, well, verizon. Tumblr is likely to get some traffic simply for being owned by Pornhub as well.
Not only that, but pornhub (for the most part) has a somewhat different sort of reputation than Yahoo and Verizon. Yahoo has been dying for eons and verizon is, well, verizon. Tumblr is likely to get some traffic simply for being owned by Pornhub as well.
If Tumblr with porn was a dumpster fire, now it’s just a dumpster with ashes.
Good luck with the sale.
Good luck with the sale.
A lot of people will blame Yahoo for Tumblr's demise, but Tumblr's product just did not do enough to keep up in the mobile era. They were soundly out-competed for attention by Instagram, Pinterest, Reddit, and Facebook.
If you think the demise of tumblr is about anything other than FOSTA, we must be experiencing different parts of the internet.
Did you use Tumblr? It was the home of my personal blog, and I also used the mobile app.
It was a poor experience lacking in engagement. Using Instagram and Reddit was much more fulfilling in creative and online social/community needs.
Tumblr's numbers were flat lining before they removed porn. I know this because my friend was a Tumblr engineer and would share data from their all hands meetings.
It was a poor experience lacking in engagement. Using Instagram and Reddit was much more fulfilling in creative and online social/community needs.
Tumblr's numbers were flat lining before they removed porn. I know this because my friend was a Tumblr engineer and would share data from their all hands meetings.
Tumblr peaked (in google searches) in mid-2013: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=t.... Peak Alexa rank was at #23 in August 2013 according to this: http://tumblr.com.alexarankdb.com/
FOSTA became law in April 2018.
So please explain to us how FOSTA was responsible for Tumblr's demise.
FOSTA became law in April 2018.
So please explain to us how FOSTA was responsible for Tumblr's demise.
I was a heavy Tumblr user until I discovered Reddit around then, which made it easier to find the same type of content with more consistency.
Please sell it to Pornhub.
Don't run it as a porn site, but run it as an art site for adults.
Restore all the adult content.
Make a decent mobile app, where viewers can like or tip easily.
Help creators get paid, using Pornhub's leverage with their financial institutions
Don't run it as a porn site, but run it as an art site for adults.
Restore all the adult content.
Make a decent mobile app, where viewers can like or tip easily.
Help creators get paid, using Pornhub's leverage with their financial institutions
I'd like to point out that Verizon didn't buy Yahoo to get Tumblr. In all likelihood they never had any plans for it to begin with. I'm honestly surprised they didn't just shut it down.
Not surprising. I don't think Verizon "gets" Tumblr, or knows how to deal with it
To be fair, Yahoo didn't "get" Tumblr either; they just more or less didn't try to do anything with it. Verizon tried to appeal to more advertisers...but completely shot themselves in the foot. I honestly don't see how it can be salvaged. There is a rumor that PornHub could buy it, but I'm not sure how that's possible. It will be interesting how cheap it is sold. Yahoo bought it for $1.1. Billion. I'm sure by now it's worth 1/4th of that.
I was discussing companies who use Tumblr for official communication, like System76 and NPM, on another story earlier this week, and how it's cringy and not a good look IMHO. (My comment was flagged for some reason despite having 5 points and 8 replies. How does this site work?)
I also heard the rumor that PornHub was interested in buying it. I hope they do! Can you imagine how quickly all the corporate blogs would scramble off of the platform to avoid association with a porn site!?
I also heard the rumor that PornHub was interested in buying it. I hope they do! Can you imagine how quickly all the corporate blogs would scramble off of the platform to avoid association with a porn site!?
It's not clear that Tumblr can be salvaged anymore. A name like pornhub could give confidence that Tumblr won't try another porn purge; at least to the people paying attention. But I suspect that the vast majority of users that left would simply be unaware of change of policy, let alone the change of ownership.
And even if they were, the community is gone, and you can't just rebuild that.
And even if they were, the community is gone, and you can't just rebuild that.
How about selling Tumblr to where its community has seem to gone? Twitter. Gives Twitter a long format and a better platform for content.
I don’t think they all went to one place. You say Twitter but my anecdotal impression was reddit.
I have some model and photographer friends who were big on Tumblr and they came to visit me a couple weeks ago. They ran popular tumblr blogs and are fully financed from their Patreons. Their said all their friends who's livelyhood depended on their reach switched to twitter from tumblr. I'm sure the small porn blogs or so just died or maybe went somewhere else. But twitter is where the bulk of the professionals took refuge.
My anecdotal impression was 4chans anime boards.
My impression of Twitter is that it is people hungry to build a reputation and a 'personal brand' and Tumblr trades on anonymity?
Both are as branded or anonymous as you want it to be and I've seen both used for either. I really think the key component for both is how easy it is to share and discuss content that the sharer didn't create with people they don't know with as much or little privacy as they want.
That makes it different from Instagram which is focused on original content with little discussion. Reddit which is focused on new content with much heavier focus on discussion. Facebook which is supposed to be for personal content with familiar people.
That makes it different from Instagram which is focused on original content with little discussion. Reddit which is focused on new content with much heavier focus on discussion. Facebook which is supposed to be for personal content with familiar people.
Sure - Twitter may not have any specific requirement for you to use a real name, but Twitter will also likely go out of its way to make make your life uncomfortable if you do wish to remain anonymous (not limited to requiring a phone number, excluding you from nice trinkets such as verification, deprioritizing you in its algorithm if you're sharing from a private account, making it harder to RT you). The use case for Twitter is clearly building out a public persona. I'm not aware of many that were trying to do that with Tumblr.
> A name like pornhub could give confidence that Tumblr won't try another porn purge
Not necessarily if the reason was (as people think) to avoid SESTA-FOSTA legal problems. Pornhub would still need to work around those restrictions and it might simply not be economical.
Not necessarily if the reason was (as people think) to avoid SESTA-FOSTA legal problems. Pornhub would still need to work around those restrictions and it might simply not be economical.
I would assume they already have that infrastructure in place? Seems like they are one of the few companies that would be poised to handle that from the get go.
Does Verizon "get" anything at all, though? Haven't heard much of Oath either.
Its amazing how quickly sites can fall when management makes a bonehead move and the community turns against it, reminds me of Digg.
Lost in the flutter of this discussion is Oath's absurd, borderline comical full-page GDPR notice that gets slapped on _every_ Tumblr subdomain. This was as much or more of a traffic deterrent for me than the content restrictions, which as far as I can tell were never competently enforced (but succeeded in driving off a lot of users anyhow).
Agreed - personally, I was never a tumblr user anyway, but Oath's farcical "GDPR" notice has ensured that I will never use any of their sites, whatever kind of content they may have.
Alternative take: the great porn purge cleaned the sites biggest problem up, and in the hands of a capable administrator, it’s a nonissue (which is to say pornhub is a good fit)
Keep in mind that a fairly significant section of the community (anything sex-positive, adult-adjacent, or associated with either) got swept out along with the porn, and a larger portion followed them ("community" bites both ways, especially if you break trust). I'm not sure I can think of any social sites that have survived and rebuilt after such a large exodus - after all, you've already alienated the populous most interested in and willing to discover your product.
It would be quite a plot twist if PornHub acquired them :)
They're definitely interested:
https://popculture.com/trending/2019/05/02/pornhub-intereste...
https://popculture.com/trending/2019/05/02/pornhub-intereste...
Techcrunch has another article about why pornhub shouldn't buy tumblr , which brings up some good points https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/02/porns-secret-monopoly/
But top 10 porn tube sites like Xvideos and Xhamster aren’t owned by Mindgeek. They have enough porn to satisfy the majority. The article is arguing mindgeek alone is causing issues and lower wages. When it seems more like it is people being cool with piracy and tube sites popping up.
What is Tumblr even worth now?
[deleted]
ಠ⌣ಠ
As a sex positive liberal, I admit a certain level of schadenfreude at seeing tumblr's decision bite them in the butt. Using child porn as a pretext to justify a puritanical purge of all erotic content is absolutely obnoxious IMO.