https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/26/18759672/dribbble-ceo-zac...
Not sure I'd consider any company good that bans (highly followed) users who disagree with the owners or criticize the site on other social networks.
Not sure I'd consider any company good that bans (highly followed) users who disagree with the owners or criticize the site on other social networks.
https://dribbble.com/turnislefthome
50k followers, no new shots since February. This isn't a "rogue account" posting "inappropriate content."
Don't you think it is suspect that his account (no activity in months) is "flagged" on the same day the CEO blocks him on Twitter for legitimate chirps?
I don't know and I'm not going to try to guess, but I think the simplest answer is the most likely and the simplest answer is that the angry rant elicited strong reactions from multiple people.
Dribbble got from him being a member far more than he got from being on Dribbble. If there's someone who full on deserves the right to criticize the site, that'd be him.
CEO picked a personal fight with one of most visible and respected members. He should've not. It was indeed _petty_.
> CEO picked a personal fight
Did he though? That's not evident. Maybe you know differently?
Honestly, I don't really care, but I see one guy ranting in public, throwing around angry insults and accusations without backup and I'm OK if people don't give him what he wants.
On a different note, maybe I just see this differently.
> “In this specific case, community flags triggered a temporary suspension."
It seems like the comments this user was making did not resonate with users of the site. This is the reality of having a social site: you have to deal with people's actions, decisions, and opinions, however rational or irrational you view them to be. It's the same kind of thing that happens almost anywhere else in any other social situation.