Return to Answer

There is nothing to say here, and some could point out that this seems to imply that the userbase said too much (since before this post the company said exactly one thing and now even that apparently was incorrect—see the next point). Therefore this could feel a little condescending to some, but personally I would just ignore it.

Personally I have nothing to say here, but I can see foresee some users pointing out that the chosen wording seems to imply that it was the userbase specifically that said too much about the issue and hallucinated conspiracies that did not exist (before this message the company limited all interaction to just one post). Therefore I accept that this could feel a little condescending to some, but in my opinion I would just ignore it.

Disclaimer: sorry, the current format is due to a merge, originally this was a reply to the linked company post.

Nothing to say here, some could point out that this seems to imply that the userbase said TOO much (since before this post the company said exactly one thing and now even that apparently was incorrect - see next point  ). Therefore this could feel a little condescending to some but personally I would just ignore it.

A similar but different message. It is also worth noticing that if the intent was indeed "begin to collect more information on how it was being used"

Again, I won't argue her but I'll let you know that this reads a tad like "But since you folk can't wait five minutes [...]". The problem is not the wait, the problem is that the stop came out of nowhere since you "forgot" to announce it and even if you probably are not legally bound to provide said data users still expect to be warned if the implicit agreement changes.

I fear you... can't? Either you provide the dump "as is" and nothing can stop anyone to repost it even if the original download required a login or you try to "watermark" it in some way that would workaround the current license and make it a derivative work that would not be reproducible but in that case... That is not the dump anymore.

Fine I guess, why wasn't this the original way to go?

This announcement leaves me with some mixed feelings. On the front, this seems like a "victory" for rationality - the dump has been restored, everything is fine now and you even promised to work on a solution together (albeit in the form of a survey).

The decision to shut down the dump seems to precede the strike and that was confirmed by a neutral third party - an ex employee so the things should not be related. But at the same time this victory only restores the initial status quo without any real gain for the community. With this stunt the company has managed to "do its part toward an agreement" without actually changing nothing, and now it feels only expected that the mods should concede, "do their part" on something too. Too put it bluntly, while it makes little sense if we assume all the related information the community got are accurate, all manages to feel very strategical and in a way even convenient for the company.

Disclaimer: sorry, the current format is due to a merge, and originally this was a reply to the linked company post.

There is nothing to say here, and some could point out that this seems to imply that the userbase said too much (since before this post the company said exactly one thing and now even that apparently was incorrect—see the next point). Therefore this could feel a little condescending to some, but personally I would just ignore it.

It is a similar, but different message. It is also worth noticing that if the intent was indeed "begin to collect more information on how it was being used"

Again, I won't argue here, but I'll let you know that this reads a tad like "But since you folk can't wait five minutes [...]". The problem is not the wait; the problem is that the stop came out of nowhere since you "forgot" to announce it and even if you probably are not legally bound to provide said data, users still expect to be warned if the implicit agreement changes.

I fear you... can't? Either you provide the dump "as is" and nothing can stop anyone to repost it even if the original download required a login or you try to "watermark" it in some way that would workaround the current license and make it a derivative work that would not be reproducible, but in that case... That is not the dump anymore.

Fine, I guess. Why wasn't this the original way to go?

This announcement leaves me with some mixed feelings. 
On the front, this seems like a "victory" for rationality—the dump has been restored, everything is fine now and you even promised to work on a solution together (albeit in the form of a survey).

The decision to shut down the dump seems to precede the strike and that was confirmed by a neutral third party—an ex-employee, so the things should not be related. But at the same time, this victory only restores the initial status quo without any real gain for the community. With this stunt, the company has managed to "do its part toward an agreement" without actually changing anything, and now it feels only expected that the moderators should concede, "do their part" on something too. To put it bluntly, while it makes little sense if we assume all the related information the community got are accurate, all manages to feel very strategical and in a way even convenient for the company.

This is in direct contrast with the information the community got before from another staff member that said

This is in direct contrast with the information the community got before from the company CTO that said