Disqus bait and switch, now with ads • Hacker News Board

Re: Disqus bait and switch, now with ads

#91

Post by untog » Thu, Feb 14, 2013, 5:34 PM UTC

jrs235 wrote: post #10

"If you aren't paying for the product/service then you are the product/service being sold." EDIT: Wow. Why the downvotes? Do people still not understand this saying? I understand it hurts if/when you get burned but it shouldn't come as a surprise when free services change to something less desirable to monetize their business models. I wouldn't be surprised if they soon offer paid "premium" accounts that don't show a…

I suspect people are downvoting you because they understand the saying perfectly, it's just so overused these days that it's to the point of cliche. I don't think anyone doesn't know this, the more interesting conversation is when we talk about what that means to us and what we do about it.

Re: Disqus bait and switch, now with ads

#92

Post by drusenko » Thu, Feb 14, 2013, 5:34 PM UTC

omni wrote: post #50

rscale wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That quote is often wrong. For example, there are "freemium" business models where the users are segmented by usage level, or by need of additional features. In those models, the "free" users aren't being sold, they're just potential customers and advocates. Further, this sort of breach of trust isn't limited to free services. There are paid services that start selling advertisements as well.

You can still be the product if you're on the free end of a freemium model. LinkedIn is an example.

You can also not be the product as a free user (like on Weebly). The above quote implies that as a free user, you are always the product, and that's just not true.

Re: Disqus bait and switch, now with ads

#93

Post by rocky1138 » Thu, Feb 14, 2013, 5:35 PM UTC

tinkmasterflash wrote: post #46

I wouldn't know, I've redirected all the disqus hostnames to 127.0.0.1 This has saved me the bandwidth otherwise wasted on ppl's idiotic quips and now, ads.

A great idea. Can you paste your list here? I'd like to add it to my hosts file.

Re: Disqus bait and switch, now with ads

#94

Post by res0nat0r » Thu, Feb 14, 2013, 5:40 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #83

camus wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can stop using their service if you dont like it. I dont understand this sense of entitlement regarding free services. And it is not like disqus did not warn its users , they did. Dont like it ? use something else. > To see that happen without my explicit consent is something that is enough to turn me off from that particular service provider because I can apparently not trust them with the responsibility of not…

> you can stop using their service if you dont like it. I just did. > I dont understand this sense of entitlement regarding free services. This free service just made it look as if I endorse a bunch of companies and decided to change my site from non-commercial to commercial. That's my prerogative. > And it is not like disqus did not warn its users , they did. Dont like it ? use something else. They may have warned,…

Currently in their TOS under 'Advertisements':

You agree that Disqus may include advertisements and/or content provided by Disqus and/or a third party (collectively “Ads”) as part of the implementation of the Service.

Now I don't know if this language was there before the change you are speaking of, but if it wasn't I'm sure included in their TOS was that you agree to them being able to amend their TOS at any time to include something like this.

Re: Disqus bait and switch, now with ads

#95

Post by shabble » Thu, Feb 14, 2013, 5:40 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #73

WA wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. I'd never include any third party JavaScript application that messes with my website.

Not even Google Analytics? It seems like everybody is using that stuff. Incidentally, I agree with you.

Re: Disqus bait and switch, now with ads

#96

Post by tedunangst » Thu, Feb 14, 2013, 5:40 PM UTC

tarr11 wrote: post #79

eCa wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like many cliches it is proving itself as being true again and again. So one reason that it (maybe) doesn't add much is that everyone knows it is tue, but doesn't want to think about it.

Logically, if the converse is false, then the original statement is false, correct? "If you are the customer, then you are not the product." This is false (many contradictory examples show that you can be both customer and product), and so the original quote itself is false.

No, you're thinking of contrapositive. Converses are not equivalent. In this case, contrapositive would be "if you're not the product, then you are paying for it."

Re: Disqus bait and switch, now with ads

#97

Post by LilValleyBigEgo » Thu, Feb 14, 2013, 5:41 PM UTC

You can't act like you didn't see this coming.

This isn't 1998, where you can tell people that your product is going to be free forever and expect them to believe you.

ICQ pioneered this bait and switch tactic back in the mid 90s: You tell people your product is free as in hippy love for all eternity, then once they've become dependent on your product and can't go about their day without it you trollface.jpg.

Re: Disqus bait and switch, now with ads

#98

Post by danso » Thu, Feb 14, 2013, 5:41 PM UTC

HarleyP wrote: post #55

danso wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just out of curiosity, but what exactly did you think the arrangement between you and Disqus was? Their service obviously saves bloggers a lot of hassle, and it can't be free to maintain? I don't mean to say that this justifies this perceived wrong, but it certainly justifies, from their standpoint, to think: "If you're going to use our service, for free, you should at least read our emails (and not filter them to th…

Side-effects need to be explicit. When he registered did the ToS say this would be the behavior? There is no logic in your argument.

I hadn't seen the TOS back whenever he registered, but I would be quite surprised if the TOS didn't give the service the right to choose the content it would deliver to those who use its service. In fact, if it didn't, they should fire whoever is running their legal department.

Perhaps you're confused to the purpose of a TOS. It is not a business plan where the company outlines their feature roadmap.

Re: Disqus bait and switch, now with ads

#99

Post by jacquesm » Thu, Feb 14, 2013, 5:43 PM UTC

natasham25 wrote: post #70

I didn't notice this happening on my blog either until a friend notified me. When I looked at my blog post, the ad space was just filled with my own blog posts, so I thought it was cool, since users will be referred to other articles I wrote. However, for everyone else, those slots were ads and links to blog posts outside my blog. I disabled the feature right away. I have my own ways of making money without Disqus he…

> My problem is that it was opt-out, not opt-in, from the start, and they tried to deceive bloggers further by making sure we don't see the ads when we look at our own pages.

If true that is a lot nastier than it seemed so far.

Re: Disqus bait and switch, now with ads

#100

Post by tedunangst » Thu, Feb 14, 2013, 5:43 PM UTC

res0nat0r wrote: post #84

jacquesm wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you feel if twitter decided to include (for your benefit, of course) a bunch of advertising next to their button after sending you an email about it and defaulting to 'on'. Would that be ok for you or would you feel that that was not what you signed up for when you decided to embed their button tag? I signed up for a 'comment tag', not for an 'advertising tag'. There is a world of a difference between those…

Thats the tradeoff you have to deal with if you want to use a free service.

There are many other ways for a free service to make changes like this. Grandfathering existing users, to name one example which probably would have made jacques a lot happier.