Comment: RE: Site ownership

(See in situ)

RE: Site ownership

"Why does Michael need a reason at all to explain his actions or how he runs his website? It's his site he has the right to do what he wants without having to explain it to anyone."

He doesn't but any revenues generated by this site require:

1. Happy advertisers with an audience for ads.

2. Happy paying subscribers.

Furthermore, since the property card has been played and this site is nothing more than intellectual property that means intellectual property exists according to the OP. So, if I walk into your house do you own the shirt on my back? If you have a policy that states if I walk into your house that you can take possession of the shirt off my back because you now own it have you justly acquired my shirt because I entered your publicly accessible property? Since the OP is essentially arguing for IP, does the same apply to all the ideas espoused herein? Does a sign which states some shirts will be forcefully removed make it a just policy? If someone was invited in your house, because it is accessible to the public, wearing a shirt you found offensive would you just walk over and take it from them without saying anything?

I am not all that opinionated on this topic. I just wanted to chime in because every rant has opposing points. Nor am I offering any suggestions to any points raised in my comments but I do think in general (which is my own meaningless personal opinion) if you would not do a thing to someone who has been invited in your publicly accessible house, it ought not be done here including moderation. This site, like any other site that can be accessed by the general public, offers a de facto invitation to people.

Finally, if anyone is going to make an issue out of reading the general disclaimer or any other site policy I would consider a perfectly reasonable response to be: "No, because I was not offered any payment or benefit for my time to do so."

I look forward to any educational value of any responses to this comment.