4 ms·

My take is slightly more nuanced - if you're paying a company to access their content, it shouldn't matter how you're accessing that content. More concretely,

My take is slightly more nuanced - if you're paying a company to access their content, it shouldn't matter how you're accessing that content. More concretely, as a (former) subscriber to Reddit Premium, I should continue to get access to Reddit via their APIs for free. But that was never an option, since Reddit only wants to charge the application creators and not the actual consumers.

iLoveOncall 3y ago
This is a completely flawed argument. You didn't buy Reddit premium to get access to the content, you bought Reddit premium to not see ads and get free coins, which you did get. Your argument is the same as saying that if I buy a can of Coke I should be allowed to use the CEO's company car for life.
- throwaway32908 3y ago
  Not seeing ads is always free, just don't use the site, Reddit premium=content-without-ads. It's easy for them to allow premium users API access, they'll still be developed for third-party apps with an accessibility focus amongst other things. Reddit doesn't owe us anything. But given how easy this would be, it's unsurprising that taking the current obtuse approach makes some people not want to use the site.
wmgries 3y ago
A different version of this argument is: why should it matter if I'm querying the content using the API directly versus by using the HTML web interface? If it's the case that different consumers of the API might put different load on the system than the web page that the provider can't/doesn't want to support, why isn't rate limiting the solution? This also provides providers a way to fairly monetize their API: we're giving you some basic level of access that matches what you get through the website for free, but if your access pattern is such that you put a load on our system that we can't tolerate, then we'll charge you (by providing a paid tier).
- zokier 3y ago
  The HTML interface has ads baked in, which pay for the request. API does not.

iLoveOncall 3y ago

This is a completely flawed argument. You didn't buy Reddit premium to get access to the content, you bought Reddit premium to not see ads and get free coins, which you did get. Your argument is the same as saying that if I buy a can of Coke I should be allowed to use the CEO's company car for life.

throwaway32908 3y ago
Not seeing ads is always free, just don't use the site, Reddit premium=content-without-ads. It's easy for them to allow premium users API access, they'll still be developed for third-party apps with an accessibility focus amongst other things. Reddit doesn't owe us anything. But given how easy this would be, it's unsurprising that taking the current obtuse approach makes some people not want to use the site.

wmgries 3y ago

A different version of this argument is: why should it matter if I'm querying the content using the API directly versus by using the HTML web interface? If it's the case that different consumers of the API might put different load on the system than the web page that the provider can't/doesn't want to support, why isn't rate limiting the solution? This also provides providers a way to fairly monetize their API: we're giving you some basic level of access that matches what you get through the website for free, but if your access pattern is such that you put a load on our system that we can't tolerate, then we'll charge you (by providing a paid tier).

zokier 3y ago
The HTML interface has ads baked in, which pay for the request. API does not.