Check valME.io. They offer a good solution for this and they just added custom domain support.

The problem never was that company use our data to make a profit, it's that we did not get our fair share of the money.

Exactly.

Good article. I was just earlier reading an article on this exact topic. The artist made this statement, with which I agree:

My line of reasoning is very simple: MOMA is one of the most respected institutions of art worldwide, and it is a reflection of American society's culture. In fact, I think art is a great reflection of a society's philosophy. What does this imply from a philosophical perspective? Do you think that with such a low level of realism at perceiving reality we can thrive as individuals?

As I've mentioned previously, a piece of art has integrity when it represents the artist's values. The artwork that sells results from the standards of the buyer and/or the majority. Additionally, the artwork that sells also reflects the political environment, as art is highly regulated (e.g., via copyright laws). So when you look at what artists are creating, and when you look at what art is selling (and the prices they are selling at), you can gain a good understanding of how the mainstream views reality.

I understand the argument "a man's gotta eat." And it's possible he wasn't always a libertarian. But once you've subscribed to the philosophy (and I'd argue that, of all the political persuasions, except maybe anarchism, libertarians are the most grounded in principles), I can't imagine the money matters relative to making a deal with the devil.

What's especially curious about this story is that he's a libertarian who did a bunch of work for the government. News flash: (real) libertarians don't like the government.

Odd.

I don't like the government, but still use the library. My point is libertarians are (typically) much more committed when it comes to principles.

It's one thing for a libertarian to use public roads - he has no choice if he wants to live. But voluntarily working for the government is actively supporting evil to a (real) libertarian. Unless they're attempting change from the inside, I don't expect you'd see it much. Yet Satoshi has government written all over his background.

Perhaps that's why the majority (all?) of politics are made up of unprincipled people.

On one with say just pictures unless it absolutely terrible I think it could pass but on one with news/etc anything against the rules should not be present.

So this suggests you agree with the decision to remove the Greenwald story?

Amazing that she called this one. And FP's comment is interesting: "As we've said before, this is an extremely far-fetched scenario. And given how Russia has been able to unsettle Ukraine's pro-Western government without firing a shot, I don't see why violence would be necessary to bring Kiev to heel."

I'm involved in another community and, except for my own, little, personal community that I'm required to moderate (think of it merely as a Facebook wall, but it's called a journal), I haven't any interest in being a mod. (I'm a writer - not a moderator.)

But considering a very small bit of drama I recently had on reddit after ignoring it for many years, I'm considering writing an article about the appropriate standards to use for moderation. What guidelines should moderators provide? How strictly should rules be enforced? Under what conditions do you allow posts that don't strictly meet the rules (e.g., because the community loves a post)? What characteristics make a good or bad mod? Who should make (and how do you make) decisions to hire/fire mods? That sort of thing.

I'm curious if any of you have ideas - how you would answer some of these questions?

I think it was a bad decision, and here's why. IMHO, a community isn't a library that requires strict categorization. And even in a library, you have books that focus on a subject but also discuss ancillary topics. A community is about sharing and growing and learning and having fun and being responsible and, overall, just acting as the social human beings we are. When you build a particular product, you don’t want anything impure in it as it will reduce the strength, effectiveness, longevity, etc. of the item. But a community isn’t a product.

The community was getting value from the story. That was obvious by many factors. Following such strict rules only reduces the value and cohesiveness of the community (especially as those who gained value are alienated and, thus, leave).

But can content submitters cash out their karma for real money?

Yup. Well, bitcoin that is (the exchange they work with can also convert it to dollars if you want, but I think there's a fee). That's the whole idea. Why post stuff and then get nothing for it? For example, many, many years ago, I used to spend something like $90/year just for the WSJ alone. I cancelled it because it was so much propaganda crap. I would much rather reward someone for great content they write individually. $90/year is 9,000 upvotes - that's quite a bit of upvotes I'd be willing to give. So I hope the idea works, as I'd love to earn some money from my writing :)

I'm glad you liked the article.

Effectively correct. When you upvote, you give the writer a penny. (You can also tip them if you want to give them more.) The idea is to reward content providers who give value. There are all sorts of other tools in the site, some of which reddit doesn't have I believe (e.g., mods can run contests that give out karma which then turns into money, you can move communities within other communities, you can choose your own karma types).

One might question the validity of your last statement though. After all, what's more stupid - posting content for upvotes that give you nothing or getting upvotes that are worth something? As a writer myself, I know which one I prefer.

But enough about that. Did you like the article?