1319
Advertising Lemmy on r/place
(sh.itjust.works)
Reddit has decided to run another edition of r/place in mid July for some unimaginable reason.
https://sh.itjust.works/post/1387534
It seems to me that it would be stupid to not at least attempt to advertise for Lemmy given the perfect opportunity. Many have expressed concerns about giving reddit more traffic, but a few thousand users is less than a rounding error to reddit. However, getting a few thousand more redditors to move to Lemmy would be great for us.
Hopefully I can get a few sh.itheads to help in this noble endeavor. If not, at least I tried.
Which is why their valuation had already halved. Do you guys consider your arguments even beyond the surface level? A company doing dumb things and then tanking because of it is not an argument against capitalism. If it were the only local option run by the community (as would be in the most unrealistic and ideal anarchist worldview), you'd be here same as it is currently but your local community production would still be supporting that option. Bad leadership and dumb incentives are not the sole domain of corporate structures.
Their valuation halved back at the start of June. Since then, they've tried every sleazy trick they can think of to claw it back before their IPO. All of those changes will have negative long term impacts but the staff don't care since they'll bail the moment they have their cash.
The rest of your comment is just you taking a wild guess at my political opinions and getting them wrong.
I'm not so sure that it will have negative long term impacts. The damage has been done. They don't see reversing it as improving their chances to turn things around. In terms of investors, if they are willing to shell out cash for Reddit right now, maybe they deserve their fate.
I'm terms of your political opinion, the only thing I know is you don't like capitalism. You either don't understand the definition of it, subscribe to what I addressed broadly, or believe in a former dead form of economic system. Really, it's on you to be specific.
So "the damage has been done" but also, "it won't have negative long term impacts", even as people leave the site and are openly hostile towards it's staff?
It sounds like you're awkwardly trying to reconcile "using predatory API pricing to increase ad impressions is bad, but corporations milking customers for everything they can is good and resisting that is pointless".
Also, I never mentioned capitalism at all, I mentioned neoliberalism. My bet is that you thought I was a tankie and this was your chance to show everybody just how clever and rational and realist you were.
Bettee luck next time I guess.
You mentioned an order of events, I followed it. The damage was done and then priced in. They have been attempting to do damage control to limit its scope and investors are betting on the likelihood of a cascade.
Now who's jumping to conclusions? Personal attacks are a logical fallacy but thanks for making your own bad faith approach blatantly obvious.
There are as many different definitions of neoliberalism as there are people that know the term. Your argument is a populist one.
Which means that you're not inherently wrong just because you're an apologist dildo looking for any excuse to white knight for billionaires.
But you can still be wrong and you can still be an apologist dildo.
Shrieking "Ad Hominem!" when people grow tired of your ineptly masked bullshit isn't a magic "win argument" button.
It is however a good way to get blocked. So go nuts. Tell us all about how flawless capitalism is and pretend you won something when I don't reply.
I addressed your core points directly. Your attacks are rapidly devolving. Capitalism is not flawless which is why I mentioned the term externalities that you conveniently ignored. It means I am trying to get you to actually address problems instead of using intentionally vague but radical language. Does this normally work for you with anyone that doesn't already agree with you?