Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

APIs for content sites must be free

somebits.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 300 posts

Re: APIs for content sites must be free

#231

Post by princevegeta89 »

simonw wrote: post #53

I've found myself resisting posting comments on Reddit recently - things like answers to simple questions people have about SQLite - partly because I don't want to cross the picket line but also because I realize that I was relying on a very light social contract that was in place there: I would share my knowledge for free, in exchange for which I knew that I was contributing to a larger dataset that myself and other…

This makes the idea that sites like Reddit only live and thrive because of user generated content and they're nothing without it, reverberate all across the room.

Looking at what Reddit has done, it makes things obvious to me that the APIs that are free to use are only a gimmick and companies can pull the plug on you as a consumer at any moment. I mean, I can easily imagine that Reddit originally published its API to look "cool" but look at what money has done today.

Why could you not make an offer to buy out Apollo or other 3rd party clients before you closed out your API Reddit? Fuck your leadership and the so called idiots on your management team that pulled ideas straight from a dumpyard.

Re: APIs for content sites must be free

#232

Post by roskelld »

thewataccount wrote: post #110
ZoomerCretin wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain to me why Reddit can't have different price tiers for their API service? Why can't they charge people who want to scrape en masse (LLM trainers) 10-100x more than mobile app API users?

Absolutely nothing. I don't understand why they don't just support OAuth and then the api usage would be by user, not by the app itself. Otherwise apps like apollo technically would be some of the biggest "users" of the api. What's wild to me isn't just the amount, it's the lack of time. In theory APollo might have enough users will to pay enough for them to profit (albiet with a fraction of the users). But because t…

I figured because they don't want 3rd party apps because they don't run ads for Reddit. Reddit wants users within their (soon to be) walled garden getting fed all of the monetization pressure systems.

My take when Reddit said that Apollo cost them $20M a year, they weren't talking running costs but revenue potential because Apollo doesn't feed ads to its users.

Re: APIs for content sites must be free

#233

Post by alecbz »

agilecobol wrote: post #196
alecbz wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100 requests per minute per what? Like if there's a third party app built against the API, is it 100 rpm for each user of the app, or across the entire app's usage?

I think it is time for some of those apps to invest into caching. Also APIs are not only about third-party applications. I can think of a dozen ideas for products build around the Reddit API without going over this limit.

> I think it is time for some of those apps to invest into caching.

Even ignoring staleness issues, storing a bunch of reddit's content for them is likely going to get expensive fast as well

> Also APIs are not only about third-party applications.

Yeah but aren't third-party apps mostly what people are upset about?

Re: APIs for content sites must be free

#234

Post by slily »

simonw wrote: post #53

I've found myself resisting posting comments on Reddit recently - things like answers to simple questions people have about SQLite - partly because I don't want to cross the picket line but also because I realize that I was relying on a very light social contract that was in place there: I would share my knowledge for free, in exchange for which I knew that I was contributing to a larger dataset that myself and other…

On one hand I understand not wanting to contribute to a commercial content aggregator that you feel doesn't return enough value to its users, but it sounds like you still use it, i.e. the more restrictive API pricing does not discount its value enough for you to discontinue your use of the site.

As far as refusing to contribute, I don't see the practical difference between that and refusing to help someone in trouble out in the street. You get even less for your trouble in the latter case, but I'm sure you wouldn't demand some value back for answering a question in real life even to a stranger you'll never meet again. Sure, a middleman is profiting off of your answer here, but getting hung up on the share of value is how so much of the web shifted from free collaborative passion projects to for-profit Patreon paywalls and the like.

Re: APIs for content sites must be free

#235

Post by kpw94 »

awestroke wrote: post #34
11235813213455 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but you can access every single shitpost from the website, so why not from API? it's lighter

Because you can't include ads in an API response

You could, but with EU and other legislations you'd have to make it clear it's an ad, so in API-speak, there'd be a "is_sponsored=true".

That makes it too easy for API consumers to ignore. (Compared to human eyeballs browsing a webpage)

But you could make it part of the ToS: if you're using the API to present posts to users, you MUST show all the posts in the list, including the is_sponsored=true ones.

Re: APIs for content sites must be free

#236

Post by politelemon »

wbobeirne wrote: post #2

The title of this post is kind of clickbait-y, the author immediately puts an asterisk in the first sentence and notes that they think charging based on the cost of running the API is justified. The title should really be "APIs for content sites should cost a reasonable amount".

Yes actually I feel the last paragraph completely contradicts the title and tone of the post.

Re: APIs for content sites must be free

#237

Post by amelius »

h4ckerle wrote: post #172
willcipriano wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> laws only apply to large players, e.g. >1M users. What if I don't want to share my user list with the government?

You don't have to. You can self report and if you incorrectly report it is a crime. As simple as that. This is also exactly how the definition of very large online platforms (which is a site from 45+million montly active Users) in the EUs new Digital Services Act works [1]. Some companies (primarily porn) are believed to have misreported, and are being investigated for that[2]. If they are found guilty they will have…

On top of that, your shareholders will want to know the actual number of active users.

Re: APIs for content sites must be free

#238

Post by jlick »

constantly wrote: post #64
simonw wrote: post #53

I've found myself resisting posting comments on Reddit recently - things like answers to simple questions people have about SQLite - partly because I don't want to cross the picket line but also because I realize that I was relying on a very light social contract that was in place there: I would share my knowledge for free, in exchange for which I knew that I was contributing to a larger dataset that myself and other…

Not to worry, you can still search google/etc., which scrapes Reddit, or Reddit itself through its native search. No need to use an API explicitly to access content like that.

In my googling this week by far the vast majority of promising reddit links for my searches have resulted in the "r/[subreddit] will go dark..." message instead of the discussion. Usually only the first reddit result has the "Cached" link available. I suppose there's probably a way to force Google to use the cache for other links but knowing that there's a cached link available is already something few regular users are aware of.

Re: APIs for content sites must be free

#239

Post by brookst »

Pet_Ant wrote: post #164
simonw wrote: post #53

I've found myself resisting posting comments on Reddit recently - things like answers to simple questions people have about SQLite - partly because I don't want to cross the picket line but also because I realize that I was relying on a very light social contract that was in place there: I would share my knowledge for free, in exchange for which I knew that I was contributing to a larger dataset that myself and other…

> Why should I work to benefit their service if they're hoarding the resulting data and not making it available to me or people like me in the future? This I believe is generally called "digital sharecropping" https://www.roughtype.com/?p=634 > What’s being concentrated, in other words, is not content but the economic value of content. MySpace, Facebook, and many other businesses have realized that they can give away…

Aggregation theory: https://stratechery.com/aggregation-theory/

Re: APIs for content sites must be free

#240

Post by patmcc »

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #103
simonw wrote: post #53

I've found myself resisting posting comments on Reddit recently - things like answers to simple questions people have about SQLite - partly because I don't want to cross the picket line but also because I realize that I was relying on a very light social contract that was in place there: I would share my knowledge for free, in exchange for which I knew that I was contributing to a larger dataset that myself and other…

Can someone explain to me why Reddit can't have different price tiers for their API service? Why can't they charge people who want to scrape en masse (LLM trainers) 10-100x more than mobile app API users?

They don't want 3rd party mobile apps. That's it. It's entirely transparent, to the point that I really don't understand why Reddit doesn't just say it.
Post reply on HN