So they want people to pay to not see ads? They literally sell that as a product, Reddit Premium. Why not tie API access to premium subscriptions? It’s not even unprecedented; Spotify does this.
Being a cheapass, I would probably have made the switch to using their horrid app. But, it would have been my own decision to be a cheapass so I would’ve been fine using it.
I can understand that line of thinking. In this instance, I think I’m w/ @bionicjoey on this one. If it was a choice of use their app or pay, I’d have paid. I refused to use New Reddit on the PC. I know folks that have gone to using the new app though (even knowing what we know now) and I guess that’s ok. Their choice and all that.
@gpage@danbob@bionicjoey I’ve said in other threads that I would have gladly paid $3/month (assuming that even 20% of the reddit userbase would also be willing to pay, making this subscription so cheap) to keep the lights on at reddit - and hell, maybe even turn a profit - if that had been presented as an option before all this debacle.
But then someone replied to me scoffing about how this means not only would I be generating free content for the site, but also paying for the privilege to do so. My take is that if this created a gated online community of contributors, that’s probably fine by me.
Now that humans are leaving by the droves, the chatter in the Fediverse is that AI bots will eventually be all that’s left on reddit and a few humans who don’t know they’re talking to bots. But if being a participating member (submissions, comments) cost money, I think it would become cost prohibitive to run bot armies on a platform like reddit.
I know folks that have gone to using the new app though (even knowing what we know now) and I guess that’s ok. Their choice and all that.
IMO this is the reason why boycotts don’t really work in the age of the Internet. It seems like there are just so many people with access and either too apathetic to try and make change or are simply just ignorant to the situation, whatever it may be.
I’m so fucking tired of this line. Redefine success and you’ll find most boycotts are actually quite successful - if you include every individual who changes their habits as a success. It took almost 20 fuckin years to get reddit to where it is, to think it was gonna burn in a day is foolish. The fall of Rome (I know I’m being hyperbolic) took what, 250 years?
The difference between Rome and a corporation is that a corporation can now be global.
Over 5 billion people have access to the internet. There is simply no way for all of these people to be informed. Reddit is a prime example of something taking 20 years to get where it is, having a “mass exodus” and being… barely affected (their words, not mine!)
Don’t get me wrong, I am tired of it too, but the reality is that we are more people today than we ever have been historically. As a result, a mere 100,000 is both enough to keep a company alive regardless of whether the other 5 billion buy or not.
I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t attempt boycotting, just that our tactics need to change for modernity. Boycotting when you and your whole town stopped buying from Joe’s Wares worked. Boycotting now that Joe’s Wares can make sales online means your town is never getting rid of him, regardless of whether you all never buy from him and actively dissuade others from doing so.
For good measure, I agree with your concept in regards to most things - general good deeds, small actions that have cascading effects on the people and the world around you. It’s just difficult to find that the intent of boycotts, which is to effectively end a businesses customer stream, is effective with the tools available today.
boycotts have always been very difficult to pull off and fail virtually every time.
For pros and cons a good place to start is Rules for Radicals, published in 1971 by the great community organizer Saul Alinsky. He has many stories to illustrate but in summary writes regarding boycotts:
Once the battle is joined and a tactic is employed, it is important that the conflict not be carried on over too long a time. …There are many reasons of human experience arguing for this point. I cannot repeat too often that a conflict that drags on too long becomes a drag. The same universality applies for a tactic or for any other specific action.
Among the reasons is the simple fact that human beings can sustain an interest in a particular subject only over a limited period of time. The concentration, the emotional fervor, even the physical energy, a particular experience that is exciting, challenging, and inviting, can last just so long — this is true of the gamut of human behavior, from sex to conflict. After a period of time it becomes monotonous, repetitive, an emotional treadmill, and worse than anything else a bore. From the moment the tactician engages in conflict, his enemy is time.
BTW Alinsky (b.1909) wrote this book to try to stop baby boomers from being dumb and fouling everything up. I am not a huge fan of the intergenerational model of class conflict but I think it is interesting.
It’s a difficult issue. I’m definitely not suggesting we shouldn’t attempt boycotting, just that our tactics need to change for modernity. As you said, they are already difficult to accomplish effectively. Even just 50 years ago, you and your whole town stopped buying from Joe’s Wares could work. Today, boycotting now that Joe’s Wares can make sales online means your town is never getting rid of him, regardless of whether you all never buy from him and actively dissuade others from doing so.
Moreso if Joe’s Wares knows they can buy reviews and other scummy tactics to make them look more worthwhile than they are.
That’s an interesting snippit, definitely something that feels true to society today still. Similar to how I said is disheartening in how many people are apathetic to a cause, that’s a very apt description to what exactly about it becomes so tiring.
He took Elon Musk as an inspiration. I am wondering if he has a narcissistic anti-liberal leanings that he just wants to make whatever he can on an IPO while destroying it in the process
It does not make sense to me why the API charge have to be calculated by total traffic of all users of an app either. I’ve decided to think it is just an excuse to get rid of third party apps until convinced otherwise.
To my understanding it’s a somewhat reasonable approach that has its upsides and downsides. I believe Twitter apps were all designed that way back in the day as well.
It’s not about the ads. It’s about the telemetry you can get on user behavior from a mobile app. Reddit wants to leverage that as part of its ad sales package.
Reddit’s stance has just been so bizarre.
So they want people to pay to not see ads? They literally sell that as a product, Reddit Premium. Why not tie API access to premium subscriptions? It’s not even unprecedented; Spotify does this.
This is literally the only reason I would pay for Premium access.
If they had come out of the gate with that being the change, I would probably have paid for Reddit premium. Now though, not a chance.
Being a cheapass, I would probably have made the switch to using their horrid app. But, it would have been my own decision to be a cheapass so I would’ve been fine using it.
I can understand that line of thinking. In this instance, I think I’m w/ @bionicjoey on this one. If it was a choice of use their app or pay, I’d have paid. I refused to use New Reddit on the PC. I know folks that have gone to using the new app though (even knowing what we know now) and I guess that’s ok. Their choice and all that.
@gpage @danbob @bionicjoey I’ve said in other threads that I would have gladly paid $3/month (assuming that even 20% of the reddit userbase would also be willing to pay, making this subscription so cheap) to keep the lights on at reddit - and hell, maybe even turn a profit - if that had been presented as an option before all this debacle.
But then someone replied to me scoffing about how this means not only would I be generating free content for the site, but also paying for the privilege to do so. My take is that if this created a gated online community of contributors, that’s probably fine by me.
Now that humans are leaving by the droves, the chatter in the Fediverse is that AI bots will eventually be all that’s left on reddit and a few humans who don’t know they’re talking to bots. But if being a participating member (submissions, comments) cost money, I think it would become cost prohibitive to run bot armies on a platform like reddit.
IMO this is the reason why boycotts don’t really work in the age of the Internet. It seems like there are just so many people with access and either too apathetic to try and make change or are simply just ignorant to the situation, whatever it may be.
I’m so fucking tired of this line. Redefine success and you’ll find most boycotts are actually quite successful - if you include every individual who changes their habits as a success. It took almost 20 fuckin years to get reddit to where it is, to think it was gonna burn in a day is foolish. The fall of Rome (I know I’m being hyperbolic) took what, 250 years?
The difference between Rome and a corporation is that a corporation can now be global.
Over 5 billion people have access to the internet. There is simply no way for all of these people to be informed. Reddit is a prime example of something taking 20 years to get where it is, having a “mass exodus” and being… barely affected (their words, not mine!)
Don’t get me wrong, I am tired of it too, but the reality is that we are more people today than we ever have been historically. As a result, a mere 100,000 is both enough to keep a company alive regardless of whether the other 5 billion buy or not.
I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t attempt boycotting, just that our tactics need to change for modernity. Boycotting when you and your whole town stopped buying from Joe’s Wares worked. Boycotting now that Joe’s Wares can make sales online means your town is never getting rid of him, regardless of whether you all never buy from him and actively dissuade others from doing so.
For good measure, I agree with your concept in regards to most things - general good deeds, small actions that have cascading effects on the people and the world around you. It’s just difficult to find that the intent of boycotts, which is to effectively end a businesses customer stream, is effective with the tools available today.
boycotts have always been very difficult to pull off and fail virtually every time.
For pros and cons a good place to start is Rules for Radicals, published in 1971 by the great community organizer Saul Alinsky. He has many stories to illustrate but in summary writes regarding boycotts:
BTW Alinsky (b.1909) wrote this book to try to stop baby boomers from being dumb and fouling everything up. I am not a huge fan of the intergenerational model of class conflict but I think it is interesting.
It’s a difficult issue. I’m definitely not suggesting we shouldn’t attempt boycotting, just that our tactics need to change for modernity. As you said, they are already difficult to accomplish effectively. Even just 50 years ago, you and your whole town stopped buying from Joe’s Wares could work. Today, boycotting now that Joe’s Wares can make sales online means your town is never getting rid of him, regardless of whether you all never buy from him and actively dissuade others from doing so.
Moreso if Joe’s Wares knows they can buy reviews and other scummy tactics to make them look more worthwhile than they are.
That’s an interesting snippit, definitely something that feels true to society today still. Similar to how I said is disheartening in how many people are apathetic to a cause, that’s a very apt description to what exactly about it becomes so tiring.
I would have, as well. But that ship has sailed, even if Spaz does try to offer that up now.
At this point, it’s not about what is logical or sensible. Huffman would rather burn the place down than admit he was wrong.
He took Elon Musk as an inspiration. I am wondering if he has a narcissistic anti-liberal leanings that he just wants to make whatever he can on an IPO while destroying it in the process
That’s not totalitarian enough.
That’s not what Elon Musk would do, so spez doesn’t like it.
What I still don’t get is why all these apps had to have a single api account for all users.
It does not make sense to me why the API charge have to be calculated by total traffic of all users of an app either. I’ve decided to think it is just an excuse to get rid of third party apps until convinced otherwise.
It was to make pay-to-play “big deals” with supposed app developers, I imagine. Maybe they were hoping to get a quantifiable influx of cash
To my understanding it’s a somewhat reasonable approach that has its upsides and downsides. I believe Twitter apps were all designed that way back in the day as well.
It’s not about the ads. It’s about the telemetry you can get on user behavior from a mobile app. Reddit wants to leverage that as part of its ad sales package.
Bingo. TARGETED ads is where the money is. They need the app to collect data. This is about selling your data.