Technology

37739 readers

589 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

137

Do You Think There Would Have Been a Large Protest if Steve Huffman Just Said We're Charging to Use the API to Increase Revenue? (beehaw.org)

submitted 1 year ago by curt@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

187 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've been a long time Redditor and an Apollo user for about a year. I even paid for it. The main draw for me was the lack of advertising. In the back of my head I kept thinking that it couldn't last. Reddit is losing revenue from the lack of advertising views. It didn't

To me, Reddit's sky high pricing for the use of the API is intended to kill off apps like Apollo and for its users to move to the advertising filled web site or its own app, which I've never used.

If Huffman came out and said this was a revenue move right off would everyone be as upset as they are? Are people upset because Huffman completely mishandled the move or because they got their ad free experience turned off? If Reddit had an app the same quality as Apollo only with ads, would they be OK with it. I've only used Apollo so I can't speak to the other apps.

I can't blame Reddit for wanting to make money. It doesn't make a profit. Investors have to keep pouring in money to keep it going. They're going to want to see a return on their investment at some point. Usually they cash in on an IPO, but IPO's are generally only successful if the corporation looks like it will be profitable or at least the stock price continues to go up. That's how capitalism works.

In my case, I probably would have left regardless. I can't stand adds in my feed. I probably wouldn't have heard of lemmy or kbin if there hadn't been such an uproar. So I'm glad it went the way it did.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Obviously the details matter, and many things happened all at once.

For example, the original policy was going to force out all free open source clients, and that was later retracted, but the damage to the company's reputation was already done.

For example, clients for the visually impaired could have been set aside as a special case immediately, and they weren't, and as I understand it they still aren't.

For example, third-party clients that don't show ads could have been blocked without restricting third party clients that assist mods.

For example, the result of the blackout could have been some sort of sympathetic statement, but instead it was the hammer getting laid down, leading to even worse results.

So you're a question is whether the outcome would have been different if the administrators had acted differently, and of course the answer is yes. That being said, what we've learned is that the administrators do not value the mods or the end user. All of the above issues simply don't matter to them because they don't care.

You talked about capitalism as if it's inevitable, but you're wrong. The decision to try to make a lot of money was made, many other online services have made other decisions, and you don't get to excuse the actions of anyone in the administration on the grounds that it's just the natural consequence of capitalism.