6 ms·

Never our decision you mean ;) Funnily enough, the nonprofit space can be even tricker to dissuade from tracking. ROI in nonprofits can be really ephemeral if t

Never our decision you mean ;) Funnily enough, the nonprofit space can be even tricker to dissuade from tracking. ROI in nonprofits can be really ephemeral if the the aim is "raising awareness" whereas if you're selling something, there's a clear bottom line. In those circumstances if you want figures to present to the board in terms of ROI, something that requires tracking like "return visits" is a hard number. Nonprofits also have to make the best use of minimal funding, so efficient use of resources on publicity is absolutely key. The only site we've built that doesn't have opt-in tracking is one for a domestic violence prevention service which didn't want any tracking to reduce the traces in visitors' browsers.

lupire 3y ago
"Awareness" nonprofits are scams.
- IggleSniggle 3y ago
  By this logic, anybody who does any coordination with anybody is scamming. Some nonprofits are scams, and some businesses are scams. Most businesses are not scams, and most nonprofits are not scams either.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    >anybody who does any coordination with anybody is scamming Scam: "a dishonest scheme; a fraud; a swindle" I would argue, outside of our closest relationships, the majority of people are attempting to, or engaging in some kind of scamming behavior in at least half of their interactions. At this point, 2023 worldwide, fear and distrust are table stakes for social interaction
    - IggleSniggle 3y ago
      I've been around long enough to know that it's the same as it ever was. I don't think it's a majority, or ever has been a majority, that engage in scamming behavior. I could be wrong about that, but I don't think the ground truth has fundamentally shifted. But that the majority must still behave rightly paranoid that it is the majority in order to protect themselves from a really pretty small minority.
      - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
        >I've been around long enough to know that it's the same as it ever was Yes well the whole point is to make things better - not just keep them the same
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        I'd say "cautious" rather than "paranoid". This relates to a piece of advice I gave my children: most people are fundamentally good and decent. A small percentage are not. The problem is that you can't tell which is which just by looking at them.
      - TylerE 3y ago
        I wouldn’t. The internet has been a game changer for scammers. Back I. The day, you could still run a boiler room, but it was an actual office in the US law enforcement could raid.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - pc86 3y ago
      What a sad life it must be to be constantly fearful and anxious of every social interaction.
      - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
        To be clear, I don't personally operate from this assumption nor does my community (generally) However it is unquestionable that the default mode for humans in America to operate is out of fear - and the opposite is by exception
        nozzlegear 3y ago
        I'm a human in America and that's certainly not the "unquestionable" default mode that everyone operates on.
        0xEFF 3y ago
        Is it really unquestionable?
        judge2020 3y ago
        Sounds like you're conflating scammy behavior with behavior that furthers one's goals. Just because something someone does furthers their agenda doesn't mean the person they interact with doesn't also get something out of the interaction, and it doesn't mean they were deceived in any way. Even in human interaction amongst your closest friends and family, they only interact with you for their own benefit - that just happens to be in pursuit of the endorphins/dopamine gained when they spend time with the people they share memories with, and it happens to be reciprocal.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      I refuse to make this assumption. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm getting a lot of mileage from assuming kindness and honesty at the start of every interaction. Well, with exception of those which need to be shot with Hanlon's handgun[0]. There's surprisingly many of those, and not where people would suspect (e.g. I see it more often interacting with small businesses than with larger ones) - but in most interactions with others, I find it best to not reach for the handgun until it's clear it's needed. -- [0] - "Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by systemic incentives promoting malice." -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21691282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21691282
      - pc86 3y ago
        > in most interactions with others, I find it best to not reach for the handgun until it's clear it's needed This is excellent advice for both metaphorical and literal handguns.
      - jampekka 3y ago
        Our economic system is based on systemic incentives promoting malice. I'm surprised how people aren't more scammy given how greatly it's incentivized. Large corporations where all human values are made illegal are quite shining examples how humans should operate in our system. This is sadly quite common in non-profits too.
      - SoftTalker 3y ago
        > I'm getting a lot of mileage from assuming kindness and honesty at the start of every interaction. I agree with this, but there are situations where because of obvious incentives you cannot make this assumption. Car salesman treating me like his best friend? I wonder why?
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      Damn, that's a dark worldview. My personal experience in life indicates it's not even close to true, fortunately.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      "the majority of people are attempting to, or engaging in some kind of scamming behavior in at least half of their interactions." I think the numbers are way lower, but it is an old, archaic idea, you do good for your tribe/family - by taking from anywhere outside of the tribe. Stealing from the tribe is very bad and might get you killed. Stealing from another tribe however is not stealing, but reputable work, as long as there are no established friendly relations to that tribe. Many people indeed operate with this mindset (consciously or not) But all in all I would rather say, that the number of people who consider all of humanity their family, is increasing.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- frereubu 3y ago
  This just isn't true, certainly in the sense that I meant it. What about a breast cancer charity who wants to raise awareness of the early signs of breast cancer? A domestic violence charity who wants to raise awareness of the signs that a friend of yours is the victim of domestic violence? There are countless examples like that that I'm sure you could have come up with rather than a flippant dismissal.
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
“ In those circumstances if you want figures to present to the board in terms of ROI” This sentence shouldn’t be associated with anything “non-profit” Proving yet again that, unless you structure your organization differently than every other capitalist thing (which means you won’t get funding through traditional sources) then you’re just helping capital further entrench their positions of power
- IanCal 3y ago
  It makes perfect sense regardless of funding source. You want to have some kind of impact, and you end up having to spending money to do that. You want the most impact and your funding is limited.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    "Return on investment" has nothing to do with spending
    - IanCal 3y ago
      It absolutely can do. You're trying to force a very narrow view of a simple but broadly applicable concept.
      - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
        I'm suggesting that in the long run, any organization that is hierarchically "overseen" by humans with outsize power compared to the employees (aka a "Board" of special people that are better and smarter and more politically well placed than disposable employees), will inevitably exploit the structure for selfish gain with a probability of 1. The STRUCTURE is wrong is the point. The entire concept is built around would-be-aristocrats (Board) coercing the management and employees into allocating property (Money) based on their whim with no accountability or democratic function. It is built to exploit. Instead they should organize as a non-stock cooperative so that is effectively impossible to exploit. That's the actual answer.
SoftTalker 3y ago
Are "return visits" really a big concern? I don't care if a site tracks my return visits, as long as it's local and not via a hidden Facebook pixel, Google Analytics, etc. that will get added to their global profile about me.
- atoav 3y ago
  Doesn't matter if you care. IPs have been ruled to be personal information and GDPR mandates that the collection of personal information requires informed consent — regardless of whether you use cookies or some other mechanism to do so. If you don't care, switch on DNT and never see those banners again (assuming this ruling preveils).
joshspankit 3y ago
It’s practically impossible to track return visits anymore anyway. No cookie or localdb or browser fingerprinting is going to tell you whether someone looked at a site once on their home computer, again on their phone while commuting, and again on a work computer to show colleagues.
- explaininjs 3y ago
  Thats when every path (screw it, even /) gets swapped for a UUID so link sharing is always traceable.
  - LoganDark 3y ago
    This is how marketing emails already work. Although outside of those, usually these are replaced by query parameters that are merely extraneous to the main path. Integrating the tracking parameters into the path in a non-separable way is going to happen eventually, though.
    - mandelbrotwurst 3y ago
      > Integrating the tracking parameters into the path in a non-separable way is going to happen eventually, though. Ugh, please don't give them any ideas
      - drexlspivey 3y ago
        This is going on for a while on facebook afaik. On youtube and twitter they are still a url param that you can strip out.
        joshspankit 3y ago
        TikTok has possibly the most nefarious version of this: When someone shares a video, a link is created that’s specific to them. It’s a short link that looks like a regular one, while the tracking params are shown only after someone goes to the link and the shortener resolves it. If it opens in the app through deep linking the tracking has happened transparently.

lupire 3y ago

"Awareness" nonprofits are scams.

IggleSniggle 3y ago
By this logic, anybody who does any coordination with anybody is scamming. Some nonprofits are scams, and some businesses are scams. Most businesses are not scams, and most nonprofits are not scams either.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  >anybody who does any coordination with anybody is scamming Scam: "a dishonest scheme; a fraud; a swindle" I would argue, outside of our closest relationships, the majority of people are attempting to, or engaging in some kind of scamming behavior in at least half of their interactions. At this point, 2023 worldwide, fear and distrust are table stakes for social interaction
  - IggleSniggle 3y ago
    I've been around long enough to know that it's the same as it ever was. I don't think it's a majority, or ever has been a majority, that engage in scamming behavior. I could be wrong about that, but I don't think the ground truth has fundamentally shifted. But that the majority must still behave rightly paranoid that it is the majority in order to protect themselves from a really pretty small minority.
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      >I've been around long enough to know that it's the same as it ever was Yes well the whole point is to make things better - not just keep them the same
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      I'd say "cautious" rather than "paranoid". This relates to a piece of advice I gave my children: most people are fundamentally good and decent. A small percentage are not. The problem is that you can't tell which is which just by looking at them.
    - TylerE 3y ago
      I wouldn’t. The internet has been a game changer for scammers. Back I. The day, you could still run a boiler room, but it was an actual office in the US law enforcement could raid.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - pc86 3y ago
    What a sad life it must be to be constantly fearful and anxious of every social interaction.
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      To be clear, I don't personally operate from this assumption nor does my community (generally) However it is unquestionable that the default mode for humans in America to operate is out of fear - and the opposite is by exception
      - nozzlegear 3y ago
        I'm a human in America and that's certainly not the "unquestionable" default mode that everyone operates on.
      - 0xEFF 3y ago
        Is it really unquestionable?
      - judge2020 3y ago
        Sounds like you're conflating scammy behavior with behavior that furthers one's goals. Just because something someone does furthers their agenda doesn't mean the person they interact with doesn't also get something out of the interaction, and it doesn't mean they were deceived in any way. Even in human interaction amongst your closest friends and family, they only interact with you for their own benefit - that just happens to be in pursuit of the endorphins/dopamine gained when they spend time with the people they share memories with, and it happens to be reciprocal.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    I refuse to make this assumption. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm getting a lot of mileage from assuming kindness and honesty at the start of every interaction. Well, with exception of those which need to be shot with Hanlon's handgun[0]. There's surprisingly many of those, and not where people would suspect (e.g. I see it more often interacting with small businesses than with larger ones) - but in most interactions with others, I find it best to not reach for the handgun until it's clear it's needed. -- [0] - "Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by systemic incentives promoting malice." -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21691282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21691282
    - pc86 3y ago
      > in most interactions with others, I find it best to not reach for the handgun until it's clear it's needed This is excellent advice for both metaphorical and literal handguns.
    - jampekka 3y ago
      Our economic system is based on systemic incentives promoting malice. I'm surprised how people aren't more scammy given how greatly it's incentivized. Large corporations where all human values are made illegal are quite shining examples how humans should operate in our system. This is sadly quite common in non-profits too.
    - SoftTalker 3y ago
      > I'm getting a lot of mileage from assuming kindness and honesty at the start of every interaction. I agree with this, but there are situations where because of obvious incentives you cannot make this assumption. Car salesman treating me like his best friend? I wonder why?
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Damn, that's a dark worldview. My personal experience in life indicates it's not even close to true, fortunately.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "the majority of people are attempting to, or engaging in some kind of scamming behavior in at least half of their interactions." I think the numbers are way lower, but it is an old, archaic idea, you do good for your tribe/family - by taking from anywhere outside of the tribe. Stealing from the tribe is very bad and might get you killed. Stealing from another tribe however is not stealing, but reputable work, as long as there are no established friendly relations to that tribe. Many people indeed operate with this mindset (consciously or not) But all in all I would rather say, that the number of people who consider all of humanity their family, is increasing.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
frereubu 3y ago
This just isn't true, certainly in the sense that I meant it. What about a breast cancer charity who wants to raise awareness of the early signs of breast cancer? A domestic violence charity who wants to raise awareness of the signs that a friend of yours is the victim of domestic violence? There are countless examples like that that I'm sure you could have come up with rather than a flippant dismissal.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

“ In those circumstances if you want figures to present to the board in terms of ROI” This sentence shouldn’t be associated with anything “non-profit” Proving yet again that, unless you structure your organization differently than every other capitalist thing (which means you won’t get funding through traditional sources) then you’re just helping capital further entrench their positions of power

IanCal 3y ago
It makes perfect sense regardless of funding source. You want to have some kind of impact, and you end up having to spending money to do that. You want the most impact and your funding is limited.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  "Return on investment" has nothing to do with spending
  - IanCal 3y ago
    It absolutely can do. You're trying to force a very narrow view of a simple but broadly applicable concept.
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      I'm suggesting that in the long run, any organization that is hierarchically "overseen" by humans with outsize power compared to the employees (aka a "Board" of special people that are better and smarter and more politically well placed than disposable employees), will inevitably exploit the structure for selfish gain with a probability of 1. The STRUCTURE is wrong is the point. The entire concept is built around would-be-aristocrats (Board) coercing the management and employees into allocating property (Money) based on their whim with no accountability or democratic function. It is built to exploit. Instead they should organize as a non-stock cooperative so that is effectively impossible to exploit. That's the actual answer.

SoftTalker 3y ago

Are "return visits" really a big concern? I don't care if a site tracks my return visits, as long as it's local and not via a hidden Facebook pixel, Google Analytics, etc. that will get added to their global profile about me.

atoav 3y ago
Doesn't matter if you care. IPs have been ruled to be personal information and GDPR mandates that the collection of personal information requires informed consent — regardless of whether you use cookies or some other mechanism to do so. If you don't care, switch on DNT and never see those banners again (assuming this ruling preveils).

joshspankit 3y ago

It’s practically impossible to track return visits anymore anyway. No cookie or localdb or browser fingerprinting is going to tell you whether someone looked at a site once on their home computer, again on their phone while commuting, and again on a work computer to show colleagues.

explaininjs 3y ago
Thats when every path (screw it, even /) gets swapped for a UUID so link sharing is always traceable.
- LoganDark 3y ago
  This is how marketing emails already work. Although outside of those, usually these are replaced by query parameters that are merely extraneous to the main path. Integrating the tracking parameters into the path in a non-separable way is going to happen eventually, though.
  - mandelbrotwurst 3y ago
    > Integrating the tracking parameters into the path in a non-separable way is going to happen eventually, though. Ugh, please don't give them any ideas
    - drexlspivey 3y ago
      This is going on for a while on facebook afaik. On youtube and twitter they are still a url param that you can strip out.
      - joshspankit 3y ago
        TikTok has possibly the most nefarious version of this: When someone shares a video, a link is created that’s specific to them. It’s a short link that looks like a regular one, while the tracking params are shown only after someone goes to the link and the shortener resolves it. If it opens in the app through deep linking the tracking has happened transparently.