4 ms·
Does this become a question of conspicuous notice? That is, ads are kind of obvious, so you as a user understand the monetization model, and can even block it
by mwexler 15y ago
Does this become a question of conspicuous notice? That is, ads are kind of obvious, so you as a user understand the monetization model, and can even block it (to your metaphor, I can shield my gaze from your annoying pictures).
But the affiliate links are often hidden behind redirects, and I may now know that it is happening. In fact, I may prefer my own affiliate cookie (donating to charity for each purchase, whatever).
Might it come down to the site owner stating, not in a TOS/PrivPolicy linked way down in the footer, but in bright red letters on the home page or on each page, "Links include affiliate kickers: support the site and we'll keep finding fun stuff!"? Would notice be enough, or do we expect some type of additional consent?
- geoffw8 15y agoHmm, interesting suggestions. I don't think any of those could do any harm. I do think if your the kind of person who wants to buy through your own kickback/charity type thing then you probably would do that before any purchase anyway. But you know what, more than that - I just don't think its any of the users business. What impact does it have on them? The price they pay isn't in anyway effected and there is no single noticeable difference beyond the link url - I just don't see the problem beyond what I would call petty jealousy ("oh, I don't want them to get the money"). Take the big insurance players in the UK: gocompare, comparethemarket - they don't publicise the way they generate revenue and I don't think they should have to, either. They don't provide a comparison service for just the good of the community - its to make money. Affiliates is going to be a big part of how the web is funded moving forwards IMO, people will have to get used to this.