That spreadsheet is how they make all their decisions, including things like "should we platform dangerous misinformation during a pandemic?" or "how many domestic terrorists do we allow per reactionary sub?"

When actual morality is cast aside in order to maximise profits, issues like "disappointing users" don't stand a chance.

But the article has a pretty shallow definition of "won", meaning "they put an end to the protests". Given they have complete control over the platform, that was always going to be the most likely outcome.

The cost of putting down that protest is harder to see from the outside though.

Would they have "won" if they lost half their users in the process? Would they have "won" if the protest wiped millions off their value before their IPO? Have they "won" because they added another straw and the camel is still standing?

But ultimately, who cares what Gizmodos take is? They're a for-profit media company publishing media that looks out for their own interests, which in this case is "it's futile to try and hurt a company's profits", no different to any other neoliberal media empire.

Exactly. Sure, some people left and a few of those migrated here. But as a percentage of overall users of Reddit it just doesn't matter. Personally, I don't care. I am happy here. But there seem to be a lot of people who are still angry at their ex, so to speak. That only leads to bitterness, because the ex has moved on and it turned out you never mattered to them.

The user base boost means lemmy will very likely be viable next time there's a major fuck up and people go look for alternatives

If it happens they might start losing speed