Might I also recommend you update the language on the "tips" overlay itself to remove any implication the money is actually going to the creator when the truth is really that its being held by you, essentially in escrow, until they claim it... which they may never actually do. And even using "tips" to describe the process also seems rather misleading in this case too.
Also, automatically scraping a creator's profile picture and adding it to your own overlay to give yourself the appearance of legitimately representing them is incredibly misleading as well. So might I suggest you stop doing that too.
AFAIK it’s literally just a matter of not yet deciding on the license yet which is why deimorz solicited advice about it on the announcement. He already has gitlab set up and we are using it internally. Open Source is coming very soon, we promise.
Tildes plans on opening up group creation at some point, deimorz just didn’t want to do that to start since it has hurt other similar startups by doing so, e.g, imzy. Open community creation to start fractures the user base too much and as a result most wind up as ghost towns.
One of the primary ideas with group hierarchy and tagging on tildes is to give us a way to judge interest level in subjects and allow new communities to form organically from that. However Deimos has also said he is not opposed to others ways for communities to form, such as a few trusted users simply saying “hey, this would be a good idea for a community to add” or even a petition from users.
The other nice thing about group hierarchy is that if a new subgroup spawns but after a few months is inactive it can simple be merged back into its parent. E.g. ~music.metal.numetal forms but is dead after a few months, it can just be merged back into ~music.metal. And if, further down the line, more users join and show an interest in Nu Metal it can be given its own community again.
I think you are just misreading that. He only says don’t email [email protected] for invites. The contacts page says invite requests go to [email protected].
Apropos that you're saying that on a social media platform run by a Venture Capital company out of Mountain View but your statement is a pretty damn cynical view of it. California may the epicenter of tech related VC but it's also the startup and tech company capital for plenty of other reasons besides VC such as the amazing local culture, awesome weather, friendly legal environment (e.g. CA's strong anti-SLAPP laws), experienced local hiring pool, state & municipal tax benefits, etc.
That's a pretty extreme case and wonderfully framed to back up your assertion, but even it is kinda wrong IMHO.
Dating sites in particular tend to promote the values their clients hold. If it's a dating site where "wholesome" is the clients primary value then advertising on a porn website would be detrimental, however a company like adultfriendfinder benefits greatly from advertising on porn websites.
What I assumed we were talking about was actual big brands like McDonald's or Nike. They, unlike dating sites, tend not to be as dependent on their customers moral values and so context isn't as important.
Do people really associate a brands reputation with the content of the site on which they may be advertising? Internet cynicism aside, I honestly don't think most people do because they understand how banner networks and keyword advertising work.
Example: On reddit there was an article about a boy who ordered McDonald's and ate it at the scene of the fatal accident he had caused. Later it was reported he had fled police custody and on the news site that reported this, a McDonald's commercial was featured prominently.
While seemingly inappropriate (and funny), it in no way reflects on the McDonald's brand.
Even if the case was Justin.tv and Nike:Just do it, I think that most people are sensible enough to see that it's just a case of coincidence.
Anyone who gets seriously offended or angry in these cases is most likely trolling for attention or is completely clueless as to how advertising works on the internet.
"wipe billions off the value of a brand"... really? come on!
Yeah the analogy is a bit flawed, I think of it more as, "Are you really mad at the person driving the car for that event or are you projecting your other frustrations and hatred onto that person because they are a safe target."
The anonymity of the poster certainly has a lot to do with it too. I just liked the comment because it gave me a different perspective on the issue.
Reddit recently had a discussion about this. Here is the top rated comment in the thread.
Sysiphuslove:
"I don't think it's so much the anonymity of the poster as the anonymity of the victim. There's obviously a 'real person' on the other end of the conversation, but there's no face, no voice...a victim online is stripped of his humanity just enough to salve the conscience, but not enough to make an unsatisfying target.
An online victim is a perfect blank slate for projection: he is represented only by the narrowest of opinions or acts, with no other definable characteristic besides an avatar and/or screen name. It is satisfying to shoot down these faceless assertions. It isn't really personal, just a private exercise of retaliation.
Look at it this way: when someone pisses you off on the highway, are you mad at the person? Or is it, in some abstract way, the car?"
Might I also recommend you update the language on the "tips" overlay itself to remove any implication the money is actually going to the creator when the truth is really that its being held by you, essentially in escrow, until they claim it... which they may never actually do. And even using "tips" to describe the process also seems rather misleading in this case too.
Also, automatically scraping a creator's profile picture and adding it to your own overlay to give yourself the appearance of legitimately representing them is incredibly misleading as well. So might I suggest you stop doing that too.