Yup, I think you're right. That makes a lot of sense to me.

• 6 days ago

Just finding this now.

I think there are two questions:

1. Who owns the comments.
2. What features should ID build.

Ownership
---------------
I'm pretty sure that there is no doubt about ownership.

The blog controls comment ownership. Their TOS governs what is/isn't acceptable, who owns the copyright and what licenses are granted. The blog ultimately has to deal with the DMCA and any lawsuits that might be brought against them for the contents of the comments.

This is true in all forums and on all blogs today. You could also argue that nearly all blog platforms perform some automatic editing of comments (they nofollow links).

While ID doesn't allow bloggers to edit comments at the moment, ID does allow bloggers to export their blog comments from ID and import into their publishing platform. I'm pretty sure you had this feature at launch and that most bloggers view it as essential. Of course, bloggers could edit the comments to their heart's content.

I don't see how ID can assert shared ownership on publishers without opening up a hornet's nest of legal implications.

There are many places that conversations can occur about a blog post off of the blog. If ownership is an issue by commenters, those conversations should occur there.

Features
------------
I found my way here because a commenter left a comment that was half useful and half overtly promotional. I wanted to do what I've seen done in every forum: edit the part of the comment that was promotional and leave a message that it had been edited. In fact, I wanted the exact feature that Zach described above.

In practice I like the idea of building features that support a more nuanced view of the relationship. Commenters should always have access to their original comments. Bloggers should be able to edit comments that they publish (as well as lock comments from being re-edited. The default installation should annotate edited comments so that the public can see when this has happened and by whom.

• 1 week ago

I don't believe that in-line ads pass PR. They are typically inserted
via javascript (like adsense ads), and since js isn't parsed by
crawlers, the links are 'invisible' to Google.

• 1 week ago

Please let me know what you find. I'd love to be wrong on this.

While the advice wasn't from Wilson, it was from an established and
reputable firm that focuses on startups.

Thanks for taking the time to engage on this.

• 1 week ago

Yokum, this is exactly the point that I've received completely
different legal interpretations on (which I did mention above).
Ultimately, one of the two legal interpretations is correct - I'm
simply arguing to take the more conservative approach.

My (limited) understanding of the law is that the law isn't clear.
The ruling refers to 'substantially vested stock' becoming
'substantially unvested'. However, the presumption in that ruling
appears to be that the stock was formerly subject to section 83 (ie it
was granted under a stock-for-services agreement). Most unrestricted
founder stock transactions are outright purchases and aren't subject
to section 83 because they are stock-for-cash transactions. As soon
as the restrictions are placed on the stock it falls under section 83
and may or may not be eligible for an 83b filing.

Some lawyers read the ruling and believe it handles the scenario you
mention (rather than the scenario where a vesting agreement is
modified). Others disagree.

I don't know how the IRS has audited these transactions, and I'm very
willing to admit that the conservative approach may not be necessary.
But, given the conflicting legal guidance I've gotten and what I've
been able to gather from the ruling, it seems prudent to assign
restrictions to founders at initial grant & then file the 83b. If you
have experience otherwise, I(we) would love to learn about it.

• 1 week ago