[sodosopa]

You’re saying that like most companies and VCs are not ambiguous soulless organizations. You can’t succeed on good vibes and prayers, there isn’t a god nor souls.

Why should an organization support something they own when most people abandoned a platform and had years to archive and move elsewhere?

Content is a garden, you plant a seed. If the land is barren why would you not move your seeds and seedlings elsewhere?

[tomc1985]

People didn't "abandon" the platform, it was still alive and useful to many.

This business-based attitude of maximization and complete disregard for the long tail is exactly the reason business interests are killing the internet as we know/knew it.

A garden left fallow still hosts an abundance of life

> there isn’t a god nor souls.

You don't know that, you only believe it. Just like the other believers. Plus, soulless is an adjective, not a statement of fact.

There is very little reason for Yahoo not to be good stewards here. It's the difference between sportsmanship and cravenness.

[StuffedParrot]

> Why should an organization support something they own when most people abandoned a platform and had years to archive and move elsewhere?

Organizations exist in a wider community and have multiple vested interests in its general health—the need for spending customers, need to attract talent, the need for stability and (in some cases like this one) culture to draw eyes. Negotiating these is much easier if they don’t act oblivious to the needs of their communities—and in this case, communities that they built. The massive value that they are no longer interested in maintaining because they can’t/won’t monetize any further (ok, fine) when compared to the tiny level of investment for letting the data continue to have value elsewhere is pathetically shortsighted, if not intentional.

Granted days at yahoo may indeed be so dire that this is the kind of quality you get out of a slowly liquidating company.