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

Disqus bait and switch, now with ads

jacquesmattheij.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 242 posts

Re: Disqus bait and switch, now with ads

#201

Post by Zak »

pifflesnort wrote: post #121
jacquesm wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's just say that I find an opt-out change of a comment engine to an advertising tag that states that I recommend certain products and services using stealthy advertising a non negotiable move, no matter what your terms of service say.

Perhaps you should have thought of this before using a completely free "SaaS" offering? Perhaps you'll think of this next time.

You seem to be focused on what Disqus has the right to do, while jacquesm is talking about user expectations and the consequences of violating them.

I'm inclined to agree with him that displaying ads on the user's site without explicit opt-in is a major faux pas with the potential to destroy a company's reputation permanently.

Re: Disqus bait and switch, now with ads

#202

Post by jmhnilbog »

mkr-hn wrote: post #188
brown9-2 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The message being labeled with "Promotions" is as the result of a filter you created, right?

It's the new smart labels feature. It's automatic.

Smart labels is an option in 'Labs', disabled by default.

Re: Disqus bait and switch, now with ads

#203

Post by mkr-hn »

jmhnilbog wrote: post #202
mkr-hn wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the new smart labels feature. It's automatic.

Smart labels is an option in 'Labs', disabled by default.

You don't create a specific "Promotions" label though. My answer to brown9-2's question is still correct.

Re: Disqus bait and switch, now with ads

#204

Post by mayanksinghal »

chc wrote: post #190
mayanksinghal wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a poor analogy and even you have pointed it out. So using it only creates an unnecessary and invalid connection between stealing and what disqus did. To be fair, "I can do whatever I want" was actually the condition GP pointed out. As other users have pointed out, this was not a surprise to most of them as they were notified about it. > they still have every right to be unhappy Yes They do. But they don't have…

> That's a poor analogy and even you have pointed it out. No, I pointed out why it's a perfectly fine analogy ("more extreme examples demonstrate the flaws in an idea better than more subtle ones"). When drawing an analogy, the things need only be similar in the areas being compared. In fact, the more dissimilar they are in other respects, the better, because the whole point of an analogy is to show how similar featu…

> more extreme examples demonstrate the flaws

You are calling out for slippery slope, if X is acceptable than 1000X must also be. And since 1000X is not, therefore X shouldn't be.

> analogy would be altogether impossible because things could only ever be compared to themselves.

To be honest, I rarely trust analogies as logical statements. They are good for introduction to a concept but they have an inherent bias towards the view of the constructor which may not be visible to the other side in an debate.

The argument you put forward was that 'I do it for free so I can do anything' is fallacious. Yes, it is. Firstly the argument here is 'You agree that I do this for free, the definition of 'this' may change with time and it is entirely my right to do so' is the actual condition.

> It is very annoying to have to explain this over and over

I am sorry I annoyed you, that was not my intent. I did read it but may be I can't read as well as I hoped I did.

> ctrl-F malic -> 0 results. Uh, cool?

While I am at least a little offended by the snark I would assume that it was my mistake that I annoyed you a lot. English is not really my first language so probably my choice of word 'malicious' was out of place, but you are taking things too literally. Disqus has behaved is inconsiderate and sneaky - I am trying to point out that they notified their users and were not trying to hide anything about this.

Honestly, I see no point continuing to annoy you. So I will shut up.

Re: Disqus bait and switch, now with ads

#205

Post by mkr-hn »

Zak wrote: post #196
mkr-hn wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the new smart labels feature. It's automatic.

I'm pretty sure smart labels is opt-in, so it's more fair to say that it's the result of a filtering feature the user turned on but does not explicitly control and cannot accurately predict.

It's usually very reliable, so it's easy to forget that it can mislabel an important message as a generic promotion.

Re: Disqus bait and switch, now with ads

#206

Post by jacquesm »

brown9-2 wrote: post #182
llimllib wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they did provide notice I can confirm they contact me as well. On 12/11/12, they sent me an email titled "Growing with Disqus". However, 1) Gmail auto-labeled it as "Promotions", so I didn't read it. Not disqus' fault, just saying. 2) The text is shady; never does it mention specifically that ads will be placed on your site, but dances around the issue before finally saying "if you'd rather not try this feature, yo…

The message being labeled with "Promotions" is as the result of a filter you created, right?

Even if a spam filter would eat it: not receiving negative feedback is not the same as consent. So you can't just fire off an email and consider your duty done. If you want to use an email that way there should be some kind of confirmation link in there.

Re: Disqus bait and switch, now with ads

#207

Post by tatsuke95 »

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,…

>I just did.

Good on you. The only way these companies will figure out that this sort of model sucks is if they lose users/money.

Re: Disqus bait and switch, now with ads

#208

Post by [deleted] »

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,…

[deleted]

Re: Disqus bait and switch, now with ads

#209

Post by AJ007 »

If those are ads, per FTC rules they need to be marked as ads. "Recommended Content" does not = ads, if anything it equals a false endorsement, which is mislabeling, something worse than an omission by some respects.

Some one decided "Whats this?" is all they needed. That might be more passable if it was hosted on a site which they own, but its not, its being syndicated to countless other publishers, and in effect hijacking those publisher's own credibility.

Re: Disqus bait and switch, now with ads

#210

Post by emiliobumachar »

mkr-hn wrote: post #205
Zak wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure smart labels is opt-in, so it's more fair to say that it's the result of a filtering feature the user turned on but does not explicitly control and cannot accurately predict.

It's usually very reliable, so it's easy to forget that it can mislabel an important message as a generic promotion.

The subject line seems a little too much like a generic promotion...
Post reply on HN