4 ms·

1. You should have stated that you have a conflict of interest (37 Signals Partner) like I did mine (author of Ghostery). 2. The fact that Media6 Degrees, a be

by dcancel 17y ago

1. You should have stated that you have a conflict of interest (37 Signals Partner) like I did mine (author of Ghostery). 2. The fact that Media6 Degrees, a behavorial targeter is on their site is binary. Look at the source, it's there, pretty simple. That is a fact and not a rumor or a guess. 3. 37 Signals has the best possible platform to state their case, their blog. 4. This is the reason I created Ghostery, transparency and user education. Every tracker it identifies has a page explaining what it purports it does, who owns it and contact info for that company. After reading all that, you the end-user, can selectively block trackers. 5. The belief that an average user should track down what trackers are on every site they visit and then contact each one of those sites for their side of the story before saying or doing anything on their end is flawed IMO. That should fall at least equally on the publisher to disclose.

sunir 17y ago
The problem is that if I were 37 Signals, I would not respond on their blog as that would give you what you want: attention to your blog and your product. If you seriously expected that, you were mistaken. And now the real problem is that you have tarnished your own credibility as 37 Signals has actually shown the facts of the case. If you had simply asked them before going public, you could have avoided that and might have even found a real culprit after some detective work. I don't agree with troll marketing. 37 Signals hurt their own reputation with the blog post about Mint just as you are hurting your own. They were roundly thumped for that as well. And yes, I do have some kinds of relationships with 37 Signals, Mint, and TypePad. However, no relationship in the world will distract from this fundamental idea: if you're going to accuse someone publicly, you should get your facts straight first.
- dcancel 17y ago
  You're making inferences based on no data, while at the same time trolling on this thread and claiming some higher moral purpose. These are false, AKA "Fact-Free" and based on nothing but you're own world view: 1. That this is some publicity stunt I dreamed up. 2. That my aim to "profit" from this somehow. That is laughable/delusional. The product is free and I donate my time and money to it for my own gratification, 3. That I'm looking to HackerNews as a source of "personal credibility". I don't care that you have, at the very least an implicit, financial relationship with 37 Signals. I do ask that you be explicit and transparent about that #credibility
  - sunir 17y ago
    You're right. Now I am casting suspicion on you without facts, and that's just stupid. I'm sorry. Thank you for discussing this with me like an adult. I commented publicly because I wanted to discuss it, and you made fair points. It's too bad this was our first encounter with each other. P.S. I hope your efforts to fight for better privacy rights are successful. That's something I care about deeply.
    - dcancel 17y ago
      The same here, I'm a fan of your company and work.

by dcancel 17y ago

sunir 17y ago

The problem is that if I were 37 Signals, I would not respond on their blog as that would give you what you want: attention to your blog and your product. If you seriously expected that, you were mistaken. And now the real problem is that you have tarnished your own credibility as 37 Signals has actually shown the facts of the case. If you had simply asked them before going public, you could have avoided that and might have even found a real culprit after some detective work. I don't agree with troll marketing. 37 Signals hurt their own reputation with the blog post about Mint just as you are hurting your own. They were roundly thumped for that as well. And yes, I do have some kinds of relationships with 37 Signals, Mint, and TypePad. However, no relationship in the world will distract from this fundamental idea: if you're going to accuse someone publicly, you should get your facts straight first.

dcancel 17y ago
You're making inferences based on no data, while at the same time trolling on this thread and claiming some higher moral purpose. These are false, AKA "Fact-Free" and based on nothing but you're own world view: 1. That this is some publicity stunt I dreamed up. 2. That my aim to "profit" from this somehow. That is laughable/delusional. The product is free and I donate my time and money to it for my own gratification, 3. That I'm looking to HackerNews as a source of "personal credibility". I don't care that you have, at the very least an implicit, financial relationship with 37 Signals. I do ask that you be explicit and transparent about that #credibility
- sunir 17y ago
  You're right. Now I am casting suspicion on you without facts, and that's just stupid. I'm sorry. Thank you for discussing this with me like an adult. I commented publicly because I wanted to discuss it, and you made fair points. It's too bad this was our first encounter with each other. P.S. I hope your efforts to fight for better privacy rights are successful. That's something I care about deeply.
  - dcancel 17y ago
    The same here, I'm a fan of your company and work.