zlacker

>>stanis+(OP)
I don't really understand why it had to be this way. It's so easy to think of other ways this could have been handled. Even just announcing the same change with 6 months of lead time rather than 1 month would have gone over better. Or boil the frog and gradually introduce API restrictions. It's as if the CEO is purposefully being as belligerent as possible to rile people up.

>>extr+k4
> It's so easy to think of other ways this could have been handled.

Well, assuming Reddit executives were telling the truth about their goals/needs, which I don't think they are.

They claim the purpose was some kind of emergency band-aid to stop the service from hemorrhaging cash from evil large-scale data-sucking AI developers without compensation... But in that case, they could have simply introduced it as a fresh terms-of-service restriction, with some payment-tier to come later that permits that use of the data.

>>Terr_+S5
They could have set up a signature with 3rd party apps, those apps could have have charged the apps a couple bucks/required ads in the feeds from reddit/etc. Instead they wanted 100% control and 100% of the data. This isn't -just- about killing off AI scrapers, this is about sending a message that reddit is 100% under the CEO's control for when they have the IPO. Wallstreet does not like "free" stuff, all they see are cost centers and profit centers.