Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

...and, to add to your point, as a not-public organization they build this product for company benefit. They let you do things on it that they benefit from. Why on earth would they be required to let you do things that are bad for their business?



Who says they would be required? The question is whether we should participate in their network considering these rules.

Of course, if enough people decide to leave G+ due to them (which I doubt), these rules might actually becomes themselves bad for their business.


Sure, but good luck finding a company who cares more about letting you express your "fuck you's" than they do about money, and good luck to them in building to scale with money only from advertisers who don't mind being next to MG's middle finger.


good luck to them in building to scale with money only from advertisers who don't mind being next to MG's middle finger.

But would they have to? I mean, Google's whole business model is to match ads to the right content, and they specifically say they're good with detecting such "offensive" images, so they could simply content match advertisers who were looking for "edgy" images.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: