A bridge too far?
I think Scoble accidentally stumbled on something interesting - have a look at his anti-Auto-Link post. I haven't commented on this thing - truth be told, I haven't been able to get myself to care (can I avoid AutoLink? Yes. Ok then, I don't care...). Here's the interesting thing from Scoble:
I believe that anything that changes the linking behavior of the Web is evil. Anything that changes my content is evil. Particularly anything that messes with the integrity of the link system. And I do see this as a slippery slope. Today users have to jump through hoops to use this feature. What about tomorrow? Oh, and Google says they won't be evil, but what about their competitors who haven't taken such an anti-evil stance? (Hint: Microsoft isn't the only Google competitor).
Now, some other people tried to make the point that popup ad blockers and Tivo should also be seen as evil, then.
That's pushing the point a little far. The fundamental building block of the Web is linking. Linking is MY EDITORIAL CONTENT. That's different than advertising. And, if you got rid of popups, I still am able to get my point across here. In fact, I don't use them. And I don't have advertising here, so my point is still OK.
That may not be pushing the point too far. Say I visit a website - they sell space to advertisters, some (or all) of whom use pop-ups or pop-unders. Are they annoying? Heck yes. Do I use tools to block them? Heck yes. Does blocking them change the behavior of the web?
Yes
You can't really argue this point. The ads contain links that the site owner wanted you to see (he's paying for you to see them). By blocking them, you change the behavior of the web. See, this is why I simply can't get worked up over AutoLink. Given appropriate tools, I can decide whether I want to see pop ups or not. Google is providing me with a tool that lets me decide whether I want to see related information or not. Heck, I might as well rage against paid placement. Scoble blathers on and on about how AutoLink is an evil idea. Winer has been going on and on about it as well. I'll say the same thing I say to people who can't figure out the "change channel" or "off" switch on a TV or radio - you don't have to view/hear/read the content. It's an individual choice, and that's just fine. No one said you have to use Google. It's an open market for search engines guys - if this is an evil idea, people won't like it. If people don't like it, MS has the perfect opportunity to market their AutoLink free search engine.
There's definitely some irony in watching MS yap like a small dog when they are getting out-competed though.
Comments
Outcompeting
[Dare Obasanjo] February 28, 2005 11:37:26.128
Google copying a feature we came up with and ditched 4 years ago is outcompeting us?
At this rate I wouldn't be surprised if people started claiming that Google also invented the search engine. It is amusing to see how much cognitive dissonance people can introduce into their thinking just to perpetuate their love for anything Google.
LOL
A bridge too far?
[ James Robertson] February 28, 2005 11:39:25.913
Comment by James Robertson
Dare,
As Microsoft has amply demonstrated over the years, being first to market is no guarantee of success. In fact, I'd say that MS has succeeded primarily by figuring out how to properly market and integrate good ideas that came from somewhere else. That's really all Google is doing now
It's not about protecting the content consumer
[Tim Marman] March 1, 2005 11:01:39.335
The problem is not that the user has the choice to turn it on or off, but the content publisher *doesn't*.
[Adam Vandenberg] March 1, 2005 12:27:44.455
The content publisher doesn't have the choice of me not using the AdBlock plugin for Firefox either.
I guess I don't really have an opinion on Auto-Link yet, but I don't run the Google toolbar either; the built-in search box (again, on Firefox) is enough for me.
A bridge too far?
[ James Robertson] March 1, 2005 12:52:37.230
Comment by James Robertson
Tim
Read my post. Like Adam said, the content producer has no control over my blocking popups (which they paid for). They have no control over me setting up a local host file that resolves well known ad sites to nil either (and they paid for all the banner ads that will prevent from showing up).
What this amounts to is whining - I want to block the stuff that irritates me, but by gum, no one better block the stuff I think is important from my site!. Bah
[Tim Marman] March 1, 2005 14:09:15.988
We also need to make a distinction between eliminating parts of a copyrighted whole and adding to or changing the contents of the parts. It's definitely easier to make a case for eliminating ads under fair use, especially when they are served from a third party, than changing those ads to something else. (See the WhenU.com cases).
My only point is that we shouldn't be focusing on whether the user has a choice, but whether the copyright holder has a choice and whether this falls under fair use.