4 ms·

you can stop using their service if you dont like it. I dont understand this sense of entitlement regarding free services. And it is not like disqus did not w

by camus 14y ago

you can stop using their service if you dont like it. I dont understand this sense of entitlement regarding free services. And it is not like disqus did not warn its users , they did. Dont like it ? use something else. > To see that happen without my explicit consent is something that is enough to turn me off from that particular service provider because I can apparently not trust them with the responsibility of not altering our relationship in a material way relative to the terms of service of the moment when I signed up for their service. then stop using that service , what's the big deal ? did you pay for it ? no. So there is no binding contract between them and you.

jacquesm 14y ago
> you can stop using their service if you dont like it. I just did. > I dont understand this sense of entitlement regarding free services. This free service just made it look as if I endorse a bunch of companies and decided to change my site from non-commercial to commercial. That's my prerogative. > And it is not like disqus did not warn its users , they did. Dont like it ? use something else. They may have warned, I definitely did not receive it, they changed the terms of service post the part where I signed up and defaulted me to behaviour under the new terms of service. That is 'bait-and-switch'. > then stop using that service , what's the big deal ? did you pay for it ? no. So there is no binding contract between them and you. Actually, their terms of service bind me and them, sure they can change the terms but those are not the terms that I agreed to when I signed up and I don't go around checking the terms of service every 3 days to see if someone is up to something sneaky. Whether I paid for it or not is not material.
- res0nat0r 14y ago
  Currently in their TOS under 'Advertisements': You agree that Disqus may include advertisements and/or content provided by Disqus and/or a third party (collectively “Ads”) as part of the implementation of the Service. Now I don't know if this language was there before the change you are speaking of, but if it wasn't I'm sure included in their TOS was that you agree to them being able to amend their TOS at any time to include something like this.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    Let's just say that I find an opt-out change of a comment engine to an advertising tag that states that I recommend certain products and services using stealthy advertising a non negotiable move, no matter what your terms of service say.
    - pifflesnort 14y ago
      Perhaps you should have thought of this before using a completely free "SaaS" offering? Perhaps you'll think of this next time.
      - davidu 14y ago
        You're entitled to this view, but if you are an entrepreneur running a free service, I'd caution you from believing it. I run a free service with 50 Million daily end users and if I made such a drastic change, users would (rightfully) be upset.
      - Zak 14y ago
        You seem to be focused on what Disqus has the right to do, while jacquesm is talking about user expectations and the consequences of violating them. I'm inclined to agree with him that displaying ads on the user's site without explicit opt-in is a major faux pas with the potential to destroy a company's reputation permanently.
        pifflesnort 14y ago
        I don't think what Disqus did was in good taste, but I do think that it's foolish to expect otherwise from a free SaaS provider.
- tatsuke95 14y ago
  >I just did. Good on you. The only way these companies will figure out that this sort of model sucks is if they lose users/money.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    Well in this case it would seem that they lost a user and cut their burn rate at the same time. I'm not sure Disqus would see this as a net loss.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- gbog 14y ago
  Hi Jacques, completely support. I see a handle of people trying to destabilize you and you defend your position so well that I didn't find anything to add, except that I fully support your point, and I am sure many more do. This should be called disqusgate and I'd really expect to hear Fred Wilson on it, if not done yet.
corresation 14y ago
"you can stop using their service if you dont like it." That's exactly what they said they were doing: Did you actually read the post? They discovered a shady, poorly communicated "feature" had been enabled, so they dropped the service. As ryguytilidie says below, it is bizarre that behaviours like this are defended, and it needs to become less acceptable of a business life-cycle strategy. I'll point a bit of the finger at the host himself, PG, as he has oft stated that you don't need to concern yourself with revenue, but rather eyeballs. That is inevitably a bait and switch -- get them in on a clean, simple commenting system, sneak ads in (with hilariously misleading emails that they know no one will actually read) later on.
pbhjpbhj 14y ago
>did you pay for it ? no. So there is no binding contract between them and you // I disagree with this. There is a moral obligation on both parties regardless of the presence of a consideration (payment of money) in the contract. There is a binding contract, albeit most likely not legally enforceable and of uncertain terms. To consider an extreme, what if disqus has said they were going to include porn links in their plugin area. Some might well consider covert advertising as more insidious than inappropriate porn. If we're in a bar and you need to use the WC, I offer to watch your stuff but instead I just walk off as soon as you leave the room. Well, "no binding contract" but I've still acted immorally and anti-socially. Offering someone something free-gratis doesn't give you carte blanche to screw them over as soon as their figurative back is turned. tl;dr I offer you a free beer, ha-ha I pissed in it, "what's the big deal ? did you pay for it ?"
- qu4z-2 14y ago
  A good point. In fact, I'd almost prefer a comment service start serving up porn on my blog. At least it should, presumably, be fairly clear that it's spam, and not something I've actually endorsed. This "recommendations" feature is essentially Disqus abusing the fact that they can generate content on my site to do one better than the comment spammers they protect us from, and make it look like I'm endorsing their random links. Spammers' wet dream, really (the fact that they're links to well-known publications and not virus-laden sites notwithstanding).

by camus 14y ago

jacquesm 14y ago

> you can stop using their service if you dont like it. I just did. > I dont understand this sense of entitlement regarding free services. This free service just made it look as if I endorse a bunch of companies and decided to change my site from non-commercial to commercial. That's my prerogative. > And it is not like disqus did not warn its users , they did. Dont like it ? use something else. They may have warned, I definitely did not receive it, they changed the terms of service post the part where I signed up and defaulted me to behaviour under the new terms of service. That is 'bait-and-switch'. > then stop using that service , what's the big deal ? did you pay for it ? no. So there is no binding contract between them and you. Actually, their terms of service bind me and them, sure they can change the terms but those are not the terms that I agreed to when I signed up and I don't go around checking the terms of service every 3 days to see if someone is up to something sneaky. Whether I paid for it or not is not material.

res0nat0r 14y ago
Currently in their TOS under 'Advertisements': You agree that Disqus may include advertisements and/or content provided by Disqus and/or a third party (collectively “Ads”) as part of the implementation of the Service. Now I don't know if this language was there before the change you are speaking of, but if it wasn't I'm sure included in their TOS was that you agree to them being able to amend their TOS at any time to include something like this.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  Let's just say that I find an opt-out change of a comment engine to an advertising tag that states that I recommend certain products and services using stealthy advertising a non negotiable move, no matter what your terms of service say.
  - pifflesnort 14y ago
    Perhaps you should have thought of this before using a completely free "SaaS" offering? Perhaps you'll think of this next time.
    - davidu 14y ago
      You're entitled to this view, but if you are an entrepreneur running a free service, I'd caution you from believing it. I run a free service with 50 Million daily end users and if I made such a drastic change, users would (rightfully) be upset.
    - Zak 14y ago
      You seem to be focused on what Disqus has the right to do, while jacquesm is talking about user expectations and the consequences of violating them. I'm inclined to agree with him that displaying ads on the user's site without explicit opt-in is a major faux pas with the potential to destroy a company's reputation permanently.
      - pifflesnort 14y ago
        I don't think what Disqus did was in good taste, but I do think that it's foolish to expect otherwise from a free SaaS provider.
tatsuke95 14y ago
>I just did. Good on you. The only way these companies will figure out that this sort of model sucks is if they lose users/money.
- mpyne 14y ago
  Well in this case it would seem that they lost a user and cut their burn rate at the same time. I'm not sure Disqus would see this as a net loss.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
gbog 14y ago
Hi Jacques, completely support. I see a handle of people trying to destabilize you and you defend your position so well that I didn't find anything to add, except that I fully support your point, and I am sure many more do. This should be called disqusgate and I'd really expect to hear Fred Wilson on it, if not done yet.

corresation 14y ago

"you can stop using their service if you dont like it." That's exactly what they said they were doing: Did you actually read the post? They discovered a shady, poorly communicated "feature" had been enabled, so they dropped the service. As ryguytilidie says below, it is bizarre that behaviours like this are defended, and it needs to become less acceptable of a business life-cycle strategy. I'll point a bit of the finger at the host himself, PG, as he has oft stated that you don't need to concern yourself with revenue, but rather eyeballs. That is inevitably a bait and switch -- get them in on a clean, simple commenting system, sneak ads in (with hilariously misleading emails that they know no one will actually read) later on.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago

>did you pay for it ? no. So there is no binding contract between them and you // I disagree with this. There is a moral obligation on both parties regardless of the presence of a consideration (payment of money) in the contract. There is a binding contract, albeit most likely not legally enforceable and of uncertain terms. To consider an extreme, what if disqus has said they were going to include porn links in their plugin area. Some might well consider covert advertising as more insidious than inappropriate porn. If we're in a bar and you need to use the WC, I offer to watch your stuff but instead I just walk off as soon as you leave the room. Well, "no binding contract" but I've still acted immorally and anti-socially. Offering someone something free-gratis doesn't give you carte blanche to screw them over as soon as their figurative back is turned. tl;dr I offer you a free beer, ha-ha I pissed in it, "what's the big deal ? did you pay for it ?"

qu4z-2 14y ago
A good point. In fact, I'd almost prefer a comment service start serving up porn on my blog. At least it should, presumably, be fairly clear that it's spam, and not something I've actually endorsed. This "recommendations" feature is essentially Disqus abusing the fact that they can generate content on my site to do one better than the comment spammers they protect us from, and make it look like I'm endorsing their random links. Spammers' wet dream, really (the fact that they're links to well-known publications and not virus-laden sites notwithstanding).