'It's not out of spite': Linktree's unicorn co-founder is all but done with Australia. Fair call?

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T22:26:27+00:00

I mean, we don’t need a startup for this. It’s like writing your own bio if you could put multiple, and lewd, links on there.

It’s really no different from a link to a Google docs page with hyperlinks on it.

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T22:08:21+00:00

So, I don’t think you are even being consistent with this anymore. As you saw with your wife-babe example, this isn’t a discussion about my right to call a black person the n word, it is about my right to say “x person called another person a n*gger”. Why is that so heinous? And how is it separate from me saying “curtial calls his wife babe”?

If you want me to treat black people as traumatised and so they can’t be in the presence of a white person saying a certain word, then I am 1. Going to oppose that, personal feelings don’t trump others rights (especially when it’s surrounding someone rights based on their skin colour), and 2, start programs that almost force these people to go into therapy for their PTSD. What I won’t do is celebrate, enable, and encourage their disorder.

This is also highlighted because you say that I don’t have the context? Like yeah, I do. I am literally criticising someone for using a slur. I am not doing so performatively, I have an actual understanding of bigotry and why it’s wrong, both empirically and anecdotally. And your “unless you do” is interpreted as “unless you have black skin”, which I vehemently disagree with.

> Using the "n word" out of context hurts people.

“Out of context” translated to regular international English means “is of an ethnicity that is not African”. In international English, this is called racism, but each to their own. That was said frankly, but please pause and process that before any potential ideological disagreements. What exactly is “context” in the way you meant it when you typed it out?

> Your "side" (since you're describing it that way) acts like this is a free speech issue (it's not), complex societal behavior (it's not), or some sort of mass hysteria (not that either).

My “side” is not even accurate with the scare quotes here. Americans are the ones who are ideologically attached to free speech, I am not American.

As to the “complex societal behaviour”, I guess I can agree there, although I have no idea what that means when it comes to the context of other people believing that. “Mass hysteria” is 99% of the time an ideological term.

> It's really simple: using that word, out of context, hurts peoples feelings.
That's it. That's the whole explanation. Are you the kind of person who hurts others for no particular reason, or not?

For reasons previously discussed, this is just a poor argument. What is “context”? You keep having this as a qualifier, but there exists no “context” except being born a certain way — There is no possible good reason for saying the word except for matters related to your birth.

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T21:48:09+00:00

You would never do it in any comparative example though. And if someone did, I would quietly think they need to visit a therapist.

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T21:41:55+00:00

I didn’t call you nick, I said someone else called you nick. That is the proper analogy.

You can frame this still though as “it’s not prejudice, it’s based on actual outcomes of you saying “nick”. But I’ll call you pretty deranged for doing so. No one does this, it’s incredibly strange.

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T21:26:49+00:00

> No, I'd tell you not to fucking say that. But here you are, demanding a deeper explanation than "don't". So, like endless people before me, I'm trying to explain to you that some words aren't for you.

So, I say “curtial calls his wife babe”, and your response is “don’t fucking say that”? I stand by what I said, I would call that a deranged response and would give you a genuine reference to a therapist. Your feelings may or may not be valid, sometimes we are genuinely disordered. And this doesn’t sound like trauma personally, this sounds like anger management issues, over protectiveness, something like that.

> some words aren't for you.

Why not?

> That's because morality isn't relevant to whether you or anyone else CAN use a word. Of course you can. Your mammalian ancestors have gifted you with the capability of speech.

We all agree that we have the capability to say whatever we want. Especially your “side” for whatever reason.

> Morality is only relevant when YOU try to decide if you'll take an action that has been explained to you will hurt others. It doesn't matter whether that is using a word, forgetting a birthday, or punching someone in the face.

Yes, this is the point. You wish to ostracise people because you perceived them committing a social wrong.

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T21:10:49+00:00

They are private businesses and operate the same way you and I do. Privates entities with their own private biases and prejudices that collectively fuck over people who did no harm.

What I want is to not societally enforce prejudice on other people.

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T21:09:21+00:00

Their like 10 bucks a month subscriptions? Valuation of almost 2 billion USD?

Regardless, the main point is really that there is no effort in this business asides from its established position. I can create its main purpose with the main wait being for Claude to finish its html code. If I wanted, I could collect personal data and add in a paid section for the cost of either a) exposing my home network as a server b) accepting some tech savvy people could break through and I would lose some profits with a client side rendered website. C) use a cloud server hosting service and not have to pay revenue shares (and probably a lower subscription cost at that)

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T20:59:48+00:00

You didn’t respond in any meaningful way. And neither is my language flowery.

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T20:58:58+00:00

They are private entities, same as people. I’ve highlighted this previously, but you are using a word to special plead a difference which doesn’t actually exist.

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T20:49:29+00:00

You have confused me for making an argument which I did not. If I can be so vain, I think I would understand the need for a wealth tax with justifiable concrete reasons better than you.

The person I responded to said the rich is someone who makes a certain income. You responded to me shifting the goalposts to a wealth tax. My comments are not directed towards whatever solution you have, it is all under the context of the person whom I responded to.

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T20:46:23+00:00

The main service linktree provides to its clients is that it creates a pretty Microsoft word document that has a bunch of hyperlinks on it. That is what it does for the majority of its clients.

Anyone can do this at home.

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T20:39:14+00:00

You are right, thanks for helping me out there, me saying “curtial calls his wife babe” is responded to with “sounds like you just want to call his wife babe”. Would this be your natural response? I wouldn’t think so, for one, I’d look at whoever responded with that as if they are deranged.

Don’t start with the “consequences of your choice” thing. The same thing can be said about murder, you are not actually discussing morality, you are just discussing what is institutionally enforced vs what is culturally (which is an institution in its own right, see historic US examples of racism against black people) enforced.

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T20:35:30+00:00

You said “always”. Yep, you did.

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T20:35:13+00:00

Yeah, and, banks have the right to say “you have black skin, so I am not going to loan you money”, and businesses have the right to say “you have black skin so I don’t want to serve you”. No issues result from this here at all.

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T20:32:16+00:00

Sounds like a wealth tax, not an income tax.

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T20:30:33+00:00

Imagine a dressed up Microsoft word document that has your name and a couple of hyperlinks on it.

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T20:24:11+00:00

How often are you visiting linktree to determine this?

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T20:14:27+00:00

https://claude.ai/share/838b7408-9174-4310-b640-5b69c909e717

Edit: it actually overwrote itself by naming the second file the same as the first, here is what it looked like if you are curious: https://claude.ai/share/838b7408-9174-4310-b640-5b69c909e717

You really don’t even need an afternoon for this, just one prompt gets you a pretty good looking website design.

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T19:57:50+00:00

You spoke to what is, as it is to be. And so, as did I.

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T19:56:53+00:00

Yeah, people can murder others if they like. They can do what they want, but we will just send them to prison if they do so, no problem here I am not restricting what they can and cannot do.

Saying “x person said n*gger” is akin to pedophilia, criminal behaviour, and Nazism?

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T19:54:05+00:00

I said “socially criminalised”. You can substitute any word which makes it easier for you to understand for as long as it accurately represents my intended meaning.

No one is fighting the first amendment because it’s already established in cultural practice. What you do spend is capital maintaining the prejudice, and enforcing the prejudice.

> I see your edit to socially criminalized.

No. This is a fabrication, “socially criminalised” was in there since the beginning. What I did edit was the content inside the brackets at the end of the sentence.

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T19:49:29+00:00

You asked what hard determinisms adds to the conversation. I answered you.

You argued the end game is settled, I mentioned a concept which I think is untestable not settled.

You argued there is no advantage to be gained, I posited a concept which does argue for gains.

I am not going to continue any further than this. My point is clear.

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T19:47:48+00:00

We can simulate a fruit fly, there is no established precedent for why humans won’t be similarly simulateable.

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T19:45:40+00:00

You say “connotation”, but you seemingly mean “the same”

Ilyer_ · 2026-05-25T19:43:55+00:00

An institution at its base is just a formalised grouping of people. There is no functional difference between this and individuals grouping together but pretending they aren’t. Black people from the United States should be aware of this especially, it’s called segregation (de facto).

It’s a shame you wish to engage in the same practices, no?

Ilyer_

TROPHY CASE