General > General Technical Chat
Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website
<< < (181/222) > >>
SiliconWizard:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on March 22, 2023, 12:20:32 am ---IMO it was a bad business decision not to completely own and control the website. If he did, everything could and would have just stayed the same.

--- End quote ---

Clearly, that is odd.
james_s:

--- Quote from: tooki on March 21, 2023, 07:07:32 pm ---I literally provided a link covering this exact topic. My point is literally that the definition is anything but “clear cut”.

--- End quote ---

I didn't see that link, but for the sake of discussion here can we use something along the lines of "mob pressure used to coerce others into cutting off association with somebody"? This seems pretty simple to me, if you don't want to listen to somebody speak then don't attend the speech, that's reasonable isn't it? Is it really reasonable to gang up and demand that the speech be canceled or to intimidate anyone that tries to attend it? I don't even understand that, there are lots of politicians, activists and other public figures I don't like and don't agree with, so I don't go to their events, that's really all it takes. There's no reason to try to get rid of them, or to create consequences for anyone that does decide to attend. Maybe I decide to go listen to <insert evil person here> speak out of morbid curiosity, should I be punished for that? I'm capable of listening to ideas I don't happen to agree with without them rubbing off on me.
SiliconWizard:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on March 22, 2023, 12:25:26 am ---
--- Quote from: m k on March 21, 2023, 04:56:33 pm ---Is cancel a revenge?
--- End quote ---

It's punishment for non-compliance with their "social order" for want of a better word. Those who wield it are otherwise weak and pathetic people who have discovered it's a way to gain power and control.

--- End quote ---

Yep.
Some participate in "canceling" not necessarily to get revenge over the person being canceled, but to get revenge over their own life, in which indeed they suffer from a total lack of control.

But trying to control others will never give you control over your own life. That never works like that. So it's just an illusion, and a costly one.
EEVblog:

--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on March 22, 2023, 12:48:55 am ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on March 22, 2023, 12:20:32 am ---IMO it was a bad business decision not to completely own and control the website. If he did, everything could and would have just stayed the same.

--- End quote ---
Clearly, that is odd.

--- End quote ---

I think what happened is that he didn't want to be bother with the details a decade ago. The syndication company whom he trusted promised to set it all up, get the database and daily email system working, work out the ad monetisation and he simply got a cut of it for zero effort. Maybe all part of the "syndication" package that he got. That came back to bite him.
I'm absolutely sure if he had ownership and control that the website would have just continued.
He should have negotitated with the syndication company that they hand everything back to him and he goes quietly, or he makes them pay bg time in bad publicity.
What happened is he apparently lost the website, database, email list, ad revenue etc, and was still super nice to them publicly.
PlainName:

--- Quote ---negotitated with the syndication company that they hand everything back to him
--- End quote ---

Possibly couldn't be done. The probability is that it will use some CMS which is common to all the sites the syndication company hosts, so what you're actually suggesting is they give him a copy of their internal setup - code, database, etc. I suspect that's not going to happen for anything less than a buyout, and certainly not if one side gets the boot.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod