• Lukecis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    When you ban porn on your massively popular site for porn & drive off a massive segment of your userbase epic style

    • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They sort of kinda did. You can post nudity now. Not porn, but nudity.

      And the dirty little secret about Tumblr is, people were still posting porn, this whole time, they just weren’t caught because Tumblr wasn’t actually looking for it that hard.

      • HeyJoe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So in the end all that decision did was hurt them for no reason. Doing nothing would have been better.

        • MercuryUprising@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ad everything needs to die. It should straight up become illegal to advertise anything other than for people who opt-in. If your product, movie or service is good, it’ll get popular through word of mouth.

  • MysticKetchup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What I want to know about these “unprofitable” tech companies is where all the money is going? Wikipedia, which is run entirely on donations, has an operating budget of ~$150 million. Reddit, Twitter, etc… make many times this amount and even with the greater number of employees and salaries it still sounds like some creative Hollywood accounting that they’re unprofitable. It feels like a big chunk of money is just going to investors/C-classes so they can just say they’re not actually making any money while the big players get their payday.

    • SQL_InjectMe@partizle.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wikipedia Foundation actually spends more money giving grants to other projects/orgs than they spend on hosting costs, and that’s still like 20% of their budget!! It’s so crazy

    • uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What this number suggests to me is that Tumblr has revenue less than 20 million dollars. I figure:

      • about 100 employees
      • based in new York
      • average $100,000 salary
      • 10m annually in humans
      • 2-3m annually for office expenses
      • 20-30m annually for hosting

      Some of these numbers can be up or down, but when I worked at a similar company in New York, we had operating expenses in the same range. (Coincidentally, we had revenue on the same range, and got sold off in a fire sale)

      • SpamCamel@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        $100k avg salary for a New York tech company? The lowest level employees there almost certainly make well above that. If we’re talking avg salary it’s probably at least $200k.

    • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      That was my reaction when I heard Spez whine about reddit not being profitable.

      How much money did you waste on bullshit? If you’d just focused on running the damn platform I instead of reinventing it into the monstrosity it is now, how much better might you be doing?

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Would that be genuinelly losing $30M a year or would it be only “losing” it in accounting terms because of paying more than $30M a year for “trademark use rights” to a company based in an offshore tax haven, said company being nothing more than a metal plate on a door next to the plates for 100s of such “companies” and 100% owned by the very same parent company as Tumblr?

    Because if there’s one thing which is common in Tech companies is using intelectual property legislation and convoluted corporate structures to create accounting losses for the purposed of paying no taxes (and publicly claiming poverty).

    Same thing in Hollywood (hence the expression “Hollywood Accounting”), by the way, which is how they just recently claimed they “couldn’t pay more because they were losing money” to the actors’ union representatives during recent negotiations.

    Mind you, such accounting trickeries can be undone by Courts (which can just deem that the “for tax evasion only” daughter company is not actually a real company set up to do business, so all those “intellectual property costs” used to create accounting losses legally become just an internal transfer of money within the same company, hence not a cost, hence do not reduce declared profits and the tax on them.

    However there is no actual Political will to do so, which is why even though the laws for it are in the books, they’re almost never applied.

    • dr_doomscroller@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Would that be genuinelly losing $30M a year or would it be only “losing” it in accounting terms

      this was my instant thought on the headline. what business that is truly losing $30,000,000 every year is going to stay open?

            • ragnar_ok@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Did you skip my comment completely? WNBA is a part of the NBA. They’re not operating at a loss, they are a cost incurred by the NBA in order to promote basketball to a female viewership.

              It’s like saying a marketing team operates at a loss because ads cost a company money. It’s just the wrong way to look at it. Usually the people who are adamant on phrasing it such are misogynists, which I really hope you aren’t, and you can understand what I’m saying

              • techgearwhips@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The WNBA is not part of the NBA. They have had their own set of owners since 2002. They operate at a loss every year and the NBA covers it as their sister league. Throwing out buzzwords like "misogynist’ is based on feelings. What I am telling you is a fact.

                • ragnar_ok@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The NBA owns the WNBA de jure: the trademarks, all the intellectual property. The WNBA Enterprises LLC is owned by the NBA.

                  The NBA doesn’t own the WNBA teams though - although a handful of them belongs to NBA owners. So basically the WNBA teams participate in a league they don’t own.

                  The W.N.B.A. is currently owned half by the 30 N.B.A. teams, and half by the 12 W.N.B.A. teams.

                  https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/03/sports/basketball/wnba-capital-raise-investors.html

                  The NBA website literally mentions the WNBA in the “Our Leagues” page:

                  The National Basketball Association (NBA) is a global sports and media organization built around five professional sports leagues: the NBA, WNBA, NBA G League, NBA 2K League and Basketball Africa League

                  https://careers.nba.com/our-leagues/

                  That being said, “misogynist is a buzzword” is a hilarious thing to say. I can tell what type of person you are already, and blocking you will not deprive me of literally anything of value.