3 ms·
Article only makes it clear at the end that it is an ad for author's "privacy first" competitor... which is a paid-for product.
by outsomnia 6y ago
Article only makes it clear at the end that it is an ad for author's "privacy first" competitor... which is a paid-for product.
- scubbo 6y agoAnd? The article _starts_ with the point that "if the product is free, you are the product". Shouldn't we therefore _prefer_ a paid-for model, which must demonstrate its value in competition with similar competitors (for instance, by protecting privacy better?) Not all free markets are bad (though many are, and many are less free than they appear). A good free product is good, but I would rather a good not-free one than a bad free one.
- outsomnia 6y ago> And? ... and I won't read these fake advertorials if I don't get cheated into reading them by witholding the admission about what they are until the end. I don't want to be lectured about Dark Patterns by a guy who deliberately misled me as his first and only interaction with me.
- ogre_codes 6y agoI agree. It is frustrating because it is otherwise a good article and likely accurate.
- ymolodtsov 6y agoIt's like that Social Dilemma movie which is 100% based on the tactics of fear and engagement generation it ascribes to social network.
- ymolodtsov 6y agoBy they way, you're not paying for Hacker News the last time I checked. "If the product is free you're the product" is such a blatant statement people throw around like they don't have to prove their point anymore.
- hobofan 6y agoStill holds for HN. Our attention towards HN (and with that YC, it's accelerators and its startups) is the product. That's rather benign compared to most other "free" products, but it's still true.