Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what's your proof of that?
It was revealed by people familiar with the matter.
Not buying it, especially that these people have their own political and monetary incentives to say so.
Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content
461–470 of 476 posts
Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content
#462Tumblr 2.0 incoming? It's a not-so-unspoken fact that a lot of social media platforms are popular because they have tons of pornography. Reddit, Twitter, OnlyFans (more openly) and (until now) Imgur all have massive communities around explicit content. Even Twitch and YouTube are hugely successful as ways for OnlyFans creators to drive users to their explicit content. Going to be very interesting to see if imgur drop…
The economics of image hosting are absolutely brutal.
Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content
#463Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if this is actually cost effective. In my data hoarding days (as a consumer, not FB scale), I found burning media an archive tool to be much more costly (and less reliable and more physical space) than simply using multiple hard drives. Now, it could very well be that FB is able to buy burnable media at a much cheaper rate than consumers (i.e. perhaps there is more margin in media that massively bulk purchas…
At scale, you would need to factor in the durability of the media. [0] suggests that some types of bluray disks can last 20 to 50 years. Hard drives typically struggle to last 10 years. So if you need to replace hard drives 5x more than bluray disks, maybe it changes the economics. That's a random study I found on Google, of course, I'm sure Meta has more accurate data on that. Besides, you need to build the same kin…
> At scale, you would need to factor in the durability of the media. [0] suggests that some types of bluray disks can last 20 to 50 years. Hard drives typically struggle to last 10 years. So if you need to replace hard drives 5x more than bluray disks, maybe it changes the economics.
Also consider the economics of actually retrieving and indexing the data. If you have to spend 2 hours looking for a blu-ray/DVD with the data you need, then maybe it changes the economics back to HDDs, which can look up a file within 20 TB of data almost instantaneously using an NTFS Journal.
Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content
#464Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not unsolvable. People with the money, time, and luxury just are not capable of solving it, as they exist in ivory towers far away from real problems, and can not fathom investing in people outside their circles with solutions.
The solution is to keep building new image hosts that show user growth and then sell the company to a greater fool that thinks they can monetize that user base. Rinse and repeat.
You jest, but Nikita Bier has made millions of dollars with this formula
Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content
#465Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have an opinion about the service, but that's why image hosts always die or end up like this. They have ongoing costs and almost no one wants to pay.
Aren't there some distributed, peer-to-peer networks that could be used for this purpose?
I'm not aware of anything that is reliable and works directly on the browser that doesn't cost money to run.
Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content
#466Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enshittification [0] [0] https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-platforms-cory-doctorow/
Some like Facebook still manage to claw their way back into a happy mediocrity. Instagram is victim to this trying to follow every trend and turning themselves into another WeChat that has every feature ever.
I'm not sure if Facebook is in a state of happy mediocrity. Nobody I know who uses Facebook does so because they like Facebook even because there aren't better alternatives in terms of functionality.
People use Facebook because its network effects are effectively impossible for alternatives to overcome.
Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content
#467Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm trying to take the most charitable interpretation possible instead of assuming malice on the part of reddit, but it's difficult to interpret it any other way than they have decided to kill 3rd party clients and not be upfront about their intentions. It wouldn't be so difficult to swallow if the official mobile app was high quality, but it isn't. There are major UX issues with the official app that haven't been fi…
I hate when I’m hovering my thumb on a comment for a millisecond when scrolling the comments sections and accidentally collapsing a thread I’m reading, how can they not test their app with users to catch these simple usability issues?
Seriously. Makes
Me feel like my scroll behavior is weird or something. Or like an idiot because I didn’t know a word and wanted to define it by tapping “Look up.” sigh
Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content
#468Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure Mark Zuckerberg thinks through all his major decisions a lot too. If you think a lot and your result is dark patterns, does that matter so much?
You seem to be assuming that if one says "they know well what they are doing" that's a defense of their actions, but I'd think it is much more often a denigration of them...
Exactly. I'm pointing out that what gp says:
> It may end up having a much larger impact than reddit corporate anticipates.
Is unlikely. I'm not adding an opinion on whether or not this is a good move, or a user-friendly move.
Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content
#469Earlier quoted context omitted.
>which spells the end of Reddit. This would probably be a good thing for the world, except for the loss of the NSFW subreddits. All the "normal" subreddits are cesspools.
> All the "normal" subreddits are cesspools. How dare you say this about my /r/DaystromInstitute
Haha, I recently discovered this sub after a decade+ of being off reddit. Good god.
Re: Imgur Updates TOS, Banning NSFW Content
#470Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've found this to be inconsistent too. Usually I just get the pic but sometimes it seems to go back to the page? And holy hell is that site heavy for something that should just be showing an image, some navigation and a forum thread.
Someone mentioned caching elsewhere, maybe you're viewing a hotlinked imgur picture in the same browser you use to later visit "the page", so it's cached as a raw image. You could try opening the URL from a different browser? For example my main use case is clicking "Show Original" on Discord, so when it opens in my browser, the first visit is not in the context of an img tag.
I just tested this by loading a couple of images in Firefox, clearing cache and saved sessions in Edge, and pasting the direct URLs of the image files. Both files loaded the image instead of redirecting to the page. So I dunno whether it's in A/B testing, or they're fingerprinting my system in some cross-browser way, or what.
Anyone from imgur here who can just tell us? :D