|
|
|
|
|
|
by chiefalchemist
2744 days ago
|
|
|
Let's not be naive. There's __always__ a trade-off, __always__ some compromise. Why does the author sound so surprised? We might not agree with all of Medium's decisions but we certainly have to understand they have the right to make them. How many platforms have to jerk the wheel left and then possibly jerk it right before we realize we're hitchhikers. We don't own the vehicle. They do. We knew that when we got onboard. I'm not defending Medium. Not at all. That said, 2009 called and wants the cries of "OMG! Look at what Platform X did ___ to me and my content..." back. |
|
|
I do understand why they would want to move in the direction they are, but I also think authors in particular should be aware of the trends and make choices that will benefit them, rather than Medium, in the long run.
What's a bit sneaky here is that they have been selling authors on the fact that they own the content, and the fact that you can move it elsewhere later (including updating canonical links). It's a bit like a SaaS offering an export function, but after you put a lot of your data there they quietly remove it. For bloggers, you can't claim to give them proper data portability without a way of updating the canonical links.