4 ms·
I want to agree, except that I believe when people authenticate to a particular site and post something, they're only really concerned with readership by other
by hunter2_ 2y ago
I want to agree, except that I believe when people authenticate to a particular site and post something, they're only really concerned with readership by other people who authenticate to that same site. Like if I have a car problem and post about it on a car forum, the ability for anonymous users to read my post is of little concern because they're not nearly as likely to reply to me as someone who's already logged in. If my goal was to spread information more widely instead of soliciting in-band participation, then in that specific scenario yes of course I need to find some other way to do that, but I don't think that's a typical goal with sites that strongly favor authentication; the goal is to get likes, replies, and so forth.
- sureglymop 2y agoWhy shouldn't they instead just get the ability to control that? Give them options to set who can or can't see their content.
- phkahler 2y agoThat's called Facebook.
- tryauuum 2y agofacebook? I can't remember a facebook page which allowed me to scroll
- hunter2_ 2y agoMy guess is advertising CPI is much higher for authenticated traffic, and crippling the anonymous experience is found to maximize authenticated traffic. But now I'm speculating on why the developers of the site do what they do. In my previous comment, I was speculating on why users of the site do what they do. While the former obviously influences the latter, motives and goals are quite distinct for each.