This. Have you ever seen unmoderated Reddit, it’s called 4chan.

This comparison doesn't really work because 4chan boards tend to be pretty strictly moderated. It's just that the threshold of what's considered acceptable is lower.

This is actually a great way to protest. If the subreddits going dark for two days isn’t enough, start posting porn or other bad type of content to popular subs that don’t have many mods.

Great product. Congrats on the raise. How do you monetise this?

Thanks for the support! Right now we monetize by charging a flat fee per API call, similar to API-first companies like Plaid.

Except that you can sell the business and get a windfall.

Very true - if you can get that far.

It’s very, very high risk even getting here though, and not just money.

Can someone explain why this is beneficial to Murdoch or other organisations? Right now if I perform a search for say ‘coronavirus vaccine Australia’ two government sites come up and 10 news sites. If I then click on a news site they can advertise to me and in the case of the guardian ask for donations in the case of Murdoch ask for subscriptions. If they are removed then how my only choice is to go direct to the site of choice. Especially for Murdoch sites that are hard paywalled I don’t get the benefit?

I suppose they are hoping the social companies (FB/GOOG) do not pull out, so then they get all the listed benefits around data and profit sharing (including algorithms - if Google had to share SEO implementation details or FB with their feed, that would be unprecedented I think).

But if they do call the bluff and pull out, then I don't see how it helps the papers apart from being able to set the narrative on their own platform and limit discourse (comments/critiques) off-site. If you can't share something on Reddit etc and talk about it, then you have to comment on 'approved' venues which will help bolster any cases they make by shutting out dissent. They are probably hoping this is still a win as others will go to the source directly, and pay if they have to because now there will be no other option.

In short they're used to the pre-2000 era and never adapted. They think with the right laws we can turn back time.

They don't want to be removed. The law is written in a way that makes it really hard for Facebook and Google to do so. They want to be paid (News Corp thinks they should be paying $1b and NINE think about $600m).

Interesting in the video she says most funds don’t achieve 1x - is that true?

One of the astute comments on this by Terence Lam: Terence Lam Stage one: invest $25K in 100 startups ($2.5M) Stage two: pick 20 of them and invest $100K in them ($2M) Stage three: pick 4 of the 20 and invest $500K ($2M) Stage four: pick 1 of the 4 and invest $5M in that ($5M) the "expected" exit value of a startup is different in different stage, and most often this is non-linear: the expected exit value increases quadratically when a startup move from stage one to stage four. $11.5M invested ;) (ignoring the management fee :p)

Another hidden benefit: startups in stage three or four may "acqu-hire" startups in stage one or two, and the VCs who know and engage with them are the good middlemen here to facilitate the deals.

It’s a Samsung Galaxy 10 2019. Worth about $200.

Crazy how bad at math you’d have to be to think this was a deal.

Yep well thought out response. It’s interesting the level of moderation in defence of of a YC company - I’ll bet they wouldn’t be deleting comments if it wasn’t one of their companies.

Yes except the leasing cost is not $150% of the cost of the laptop per year.