ksclarke

I'd buy that in a second.

The corporation's risk assessment department has calculated it's more cost effective to deny and then fight the consequences in court vs. spend the extra money up front?

That first sentence I believe. The second not so much.

Some become President of the United States. Others probably grow out of it?

The whole time I was reading this, as someone from the U.S., I was wondering what country the writer was from, because it sure as #$@! wasn't written by someone in the U.S. When I got to that part, I was, "Oh. Okay. That makes sense."

Looking at the number of points and comments on each (including this one), I remember something my mom (an elementary school teacher) always said: "You have to repeat something three times before people hear it."

Yes, but they're the smaller of the two groups.

Ha, "wallet garden" gave me a good chuckle. I usually hear it expressed as a "walled garden", but this might be the perfect typo (or clever twist / word play).

I'm guessing it was a typo, but well done nonetheless.

Because people (i.e., users) aren't the same thing as developers. Most people just want to use a tool, rather than develop it.

> “Good spam” is just real content.

Harvested and put on somebody else's site that is covered with ads.

That's not where all its success came from. That's the one downfall the article got right. It was successful before that. Trying to shoehorn a bunch of people who didn't want to use it into using it was the mistake. It was doing just fine before that and it would have continued to grow organically. It was never going to be a Facebook replacement though. It was better than that.