Posterous silently changes all external links to affiliate links • Hacker News Board

Re: Posterous silently changes all external links to affiliate links

#141

Post by paraschopra » Sat, May 01, 2010, 11:42 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #133

a4agarwal wrote: post #77

Hey guys, Posterous partnered with Viglink.com back in December as an experiment to see if we could generate revenue by adding an affiliate code to links that don't already have one. We chose to work with Viglink because their technology doesn't interfere with the user experience at all. 1. Links in Posterous posts are not edited in any way 2. Viglink javascript intercepts clicks and adds an affiliate code when possi…

You tried to get away with it under the radar, succeeded for four months and someone found you out. The fact that it took four months is a testament to how well you did what you could to hide it. If you really want to be transparent you do these things in advance, and you make that a big part of your mission statement. Four months is not an experiment, an experiment is something you do for a week or two, maybe a mont…

Or they could have made an announcement. I have seen a lot of reviews and articles clearly mentioning that the link they are posting is an affiliate link and I don't find anything wrong with that. Because they are explicitly saying that it is an affiliate link and it is the choice of a visitor then.

There is nothing wrong with affiliate links, _as long as_ the visitor is aware of it.

Re: Posterous silently changes all external links to affiliate links

#142

Post by Tichy » Sat, May 01, 2010, 11:44 AM UTC

dandelany wrote: post #92

Tichy wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So whenever I use a free service, they are basically entitled to do whatever they want? What kind of logic is that? If they can't handle it, people shouldn't offer a free service. But don't run a service for "free" and then try to make money with shady business practices. In other words, you are not entitled to running a service for free.

From the Posterous Terms of Service: "You shall retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions; however, by submitting material to Posterous you grant Posterous the irrevocable, fully transferable rights to use, reproduce, distribute, modify , transmit, prepare derivative works of, display and produce the material in connection with Posterous and Posterous's business, but solely in accordance with these…

I don't think what they are doing is illegal (IANAL, though). But nobody reads TOS, and even if I read something like the above, I would maybe assume they just need that to be able to publish the blog posts at all. It's difficult to get such formulations right - what does "in connection with Posterous and Posterous's business" mean, for example? Does it mean they may do whatever they want to do, as long as they earn money with it? Ie wrap your blog posts into a book and sell it? Print T-Shirts with the drawings you posted?

There is always a certain amount of goodwill in interpreting contracts and TOS. If it turns out that a company is bending the wording to their advantage, it is a natural reaction to leave and avoid the company in the future.

Re: Posterous silently changes all external links to affiliate links

#143

Post by fredoliveira » Sat, May 01, 2010, 11:49 AM UTC

pak wrote: post #115

mahmud wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google does execute javascript, and even some flash, but not on all its crawlers (which is very understandable; building a DOM for every page on the web is expensive, even for Google. I say "build a DOM" because abstract interpretation is still far off, specially for the web and its cruft of languages, standards and quirks.) http://www.seomoz.org/ugc/new-reality-google-follows-links-i... http://www.labnol.org/interne…

This is interesting, but it leads me to ask, what can you expect a JavaScript-enabled web crawler do? Load the page into the DOM, wait a few seconds for the dust to settle, start firing click events on everything and recording what requests are generated? It would seem a crawler could cause some really undesirable behavior on your site if that were the case. Imagine click events that post comments, delete things, dow…

There have been a few discussions about this topic in the past, and in the end it boils down to the developer being smart about the way he does requests.

I'm quite sure (wish I could remember where I read it) the crawler only actually performs GETs (which makes total sense because GET was always meant for retrieving and listing data), so a smart developer would use other HTTP methods (PUT, POST, DELETE) for actions that have modify existing application data.

Re: Posterous silently changes all external links to affiliate links

#144

Post by Silhouette » Sat, May 01, 2010, 12:15 PM UTC

Tichy wrote: post #131

Silhouette wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Suppose posterous would charge 5$/month for their blog hosting, and still would add the affiliate links, what would it change in your opinion? It is fundamentally different in law as soon as there is consideration in both directions, because then you have the basis of a contract. However, if users aren't paying for the service (or otherwise giving some significant benefit to the service provider) then there is unli…

Hm, I don't know how contracts work in the US, but at least where I live, I don't think "a service has to cost money" is part of what makes a contract legal. A contract is a contract, it doesn't matter if it is about money or anything else. Also, it is not really free, Posterous is getting something in return. At the moment for example the affiliate links. So it would be a kind of quantum state contract? If they don'…

Where do you live, where contracts don't have to involve consideration in both directions?

That consideration doesn't have to be financial, but there has to be something of value in the deal for both sides. Maybe in Posterous's case, a user could argue that providing the rights to use their content was consideration enough, and maybe a court would agree. This is where you start needing a real lawyer.

Re: Posterous silently changes all external links to affiliate links

#145

Post by Silhouette » Sat, May 01, 2010, 12:22 PM UTC

dave1619 wrote: post #96

a4agarwal wrote: post #77

Hey guys, Posterous partnered with Viglink.com back in December as an experiment to see if we could generate revenue by adding an affiliate code to links that don't already have one. We chose to work with Viglink because their technology doesn't interfere with the user experience at all. 1. Links in Posterous posts are not edited in any way 2. Viglink javascript intercepts clicks and adds an affiliate code when possi…

Thanks for your post. I love posterous services, but I think the affiliate link feature should be disclosed and clearly highlighted before the user signs up. You might say it doesn't affect user experience at all, but I disagree. Sometimes the viglinks add an extra one or two forwarding urls and this can delay the user getting to the link, and when they get to the link, it's a long affiliate link, rather than a short…

To some extent, I would be more worried about the effect this would have on blogs hosted by Posterous. If I'm reading a blog and I find it doing something sneaky to track my behaviour, I'm not going to care whether it is the blogger or the host service, I'm just going to stick all related domains/IPs in the appropriate kill file under "don't spy on me".

Re: Posterous silently changes all external links to affiliate links

#146

Post by Silhouette » Sat, May 01, 2010, 12:36 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #138

Silhouette wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So whenever I use a free service, they are basically entitled to do whatever they want? Well, legally speaking, they probably are, yes. You get what you pay for, and the current entitlement culture because a lot of "free" on-line services don't come with financial strings does not negate this basic fact of life. Now, whether they should disclose that they are doing this so that those using their service can decide…

Incorrect. Free services have terms and conditions just like paid services. If they change your content on the fly that's part of the agreement and it should be disclosed. Whether you pay or not is immaterial, if you paid they could do it just the same. There is no 'legally speaking' here, this is not a lawsuit, it's just against the expectations that you create in the heads of your users, and that is always bad for…

I'm sorry, but how was my post incorrect?

(a) Terms and conditions aren't worth anything unless they are legally enforceable.

(b) The terms and conditions for just about every blogging or social networking site claim a far-reaching right to use and modify any submitted material, and I've just confirmed that this includes the terms for Posterous.

(c) Whether it is bad PR for them to pull something like this is a different question.

Re: Posterous silently changes all external links to affiliate links

#147

Post by MicahWedemeyer » Sat, May 01, 2010, 12:47 PM UTC

buro9 wrote: post #32

bravura wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay. Could you clarify more what happens if there are existing affiliate codes? Does Posterous only get an affiliate fee if there is no existing affiliate code?

That's pretty much the deal. Only URLs that don't yet include affiliate info gets re-written. There are a couple of companies in this space, viglink, skimlinks, etc. They all operate on the basis that they sign up to every affiliate scheme and they become the single publisher with which the merchants have a relationship (or more likely, the merchants use a marketplace that puts all merchants together so that they can…

It's not money left on the table. It's an automated way to take a slice of money that was set aside for a non-automated sales process.

I only recently found out about these services, and my first thought was "cool!" But now, it occurs to me that they're built on very shakey ground. They only work if they're not popular. If they start becoming widespread, then the affiliate programs will have to lower (perhaps drastically) the commissions offered to compensate for the fact that suddenly every link is an affiliate link.

Re: Posterous silently changes all external links to affiliate links

#148

Post by speby » Sat, May 01, 2010, 1:04 PM UTC

stuntmouse wrote: post #127

a4agarwal wrote: post #77

Hey guys, Posterous partnered with Viglink.com back in December as an experiment to see if we could generate revenue by adding an affiliate code to links that don't already have one. We chose to work with Viglink because their technology doesn't interfere with the user experience at all. 1. Links in Posterous posts are not edited in any way 2. Viglink javascript intercepts clicks and adds an affiliate code when possi…

An "oversight" for four months ? On a critical part of your business that has a direct impact on the perception of the quality of the blogs you host? Are you trying to become the Facebook of blogging (in a bad way)? You have a nice service, but this is too much. Also, it prompted me to take another look at your terms of service, which are surprisingly onerous. You've lost a user and an advocate. Good luck.

Good. Tell em! Even better that you're taking a real stand by putting your money where your feet are and moving on. Oh, shit, Posterous is free. Maybe send them a check for the valuable service they did provide you before moving on.

And really, what better blog alternative are you even going to go to?

Re: Posterous silently changes all external links to affiliate links

#149

Post by DannoHung » Sat, May 01, 2010, 1:08 PM UTC

Tichy wrote: post #64

codyrobbins wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're using their service completely free, so I don't think you are really entitled to any say on the matter. If you were paying for it you might have some reasonable expectation that they leave your content intact, but you're not. It's like complaining about high taxes and then turning around and complaining that the government isn't sending everyone's children to college for free. You can't have it both ways. I th…

So whenever I use a free service, they are basically entitled to do whatever they want? What kind of logic is that? If they can't handle it, people shouldn't offer a free service. But don't run a service for "free" and then try to make money with shady business practices. In other words, you are not entitled to running a service for free.

> So whenever I use a free service, they are basically entitled to do whatever they want? What kind of logic is that?

Pretty fucking much!

You've got it the wrong way around asshole. If you can't handle it, you shouldn't be USING a free service!

Re: Posterous silently changes all external links to affiliate links

#150

Post by jacquesm » Sat, May 01, 2010, 1:16 PM UTC

Silhouette wrote: post #146

jacquesm wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorrect. Free services have terms and conditions just like paid services. If they change your content on the fly that's part of the agreement and it should be disclosed. Whether you pay or not is immaterial, if you paid they could do it just the same. There is no 'legally speaking' here, this is not a lawsuit, it's just against the expectations that you create in the heads of your users, and that is always bad for…

I'm sorry, but how was my post incorrect? (a) Terms and conditions aren't worth anything unless they are legally enforceable. (b) The terms and conditions for just about every blogging or social networking site claim a far-reaching right to use and modify any submitted material, and I've just confirmed that this includes the terms for Posterous. (c) Whether it is bad PR for them to pull something like this is a diffe…

This is not a lawsuit, and to pretend it is is not really correct. It's simply one side not informing the other fully of the status quo, which is not 'actionable' in any other way than by simply quitting the service, which probably quite a few people will do.

A business operates on trust, this breaks that trust.

It's not just PR, it's a fundamental breach of the silent agreement between users and a service.

What your terms and conditions write in legalese and what you intend to do in plain English can be two different things but that isn't a long term strategy.

Nobody is going to sue posterous over this, mostly because there isn't any real damage to the end users, and yet they should have known much better than to even try and get away with this.