points by tourmalinetaco 20 hours ago | 0 comments
They were publicly posting to a search-indexed website with the intent of helping people. I may be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that they understood that SO owned the messages and were already profiting off of them.
[–] jodrellblank 14 hours ago
No they don't understand that SO owned the messages: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50287815 - someone telling StackOverflow to "rest in piss" because another user dared edit "MY TEXT" which is "unacceptable".
[–] rpdillon 10 hours ago
Power and responsibility go together. The power to edit needs to be attached to the responsibility of having your name next to those edits. That person's point isn't about ownership at all, it's about attribution.
[–] GeorgeWBasic 11 hours ago
That person is right to be angry with StackOverflow for that, and another comment explains that StackOverflow was editing their words but still claiming that they them. That can cause reputational damage. StackOverflow should have been sued over that.
[–] saithir 12 hours ago
Presenting CC-BY-SA as "SO owns anything" is an even more terrible lack of understanding.
[–] jodrellblank 11 hours ago
Your comment is low quality; it's an insult, it explains nothing, and the nitpick changes nothing about the point.
Of course stepping past the licensing question - I would have never contributed to SO as I did had I known what was to come.
With SO itself I could at least see the value in having a central store of knowledge for these topics and so, hey, I don’t mind that they got to be the ones to make it happen and profit.