Rogue ([info]ex_shattered767) wrote in [info]no_lj_ads,
@ 2006-04-19 22:32:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:ad implementation, history, social contract

Social Contract
I present to you an archived copy of the Social Contract, before the "we'll never have ads" part was removed. Viewing the source, towards the end:

// FILE ARCHIVED ON 20040401175244

For comparison, the current version is located here.
Contract introduced here.
"Contract" switched to "principles" here.


(Post a new comment)


[info]burr86
2006-04-20 03:45 am UTC (link)
So it was archived on April 1, 2004. What other information does this tell us?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]ex_shattered767
2006-04-20 03:48 am UTC (link)
That never≈24 months in LJ Speak™.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]burr86
2006-04-20 03:50 am UTC (link)
That date's just the date that the Wayback Machine archived it, not the date it was added to the site. Everyone's here skilled at browsing CVS, so I don't need to point you to the page where it says that the Social Contract was originally added on June 20, 2003.

So, by your definition, "never" in LJ Speak™ is something closer to 34 months. But regardless of what you measure, you really oughta chop off 16 months, since that's when that page was *actually* changed to not say "never".

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ex_shattered767
2006-04-20 03:58 am UTC (link)
Which, not surprisingly, puts it around the time LJ was sold. Just like everyone has been saying. A liar is still a liar, a broken promise is still a broken promise. Sugarcoating it does not change what it is.

As far as CVs goes, actually no, the less geeky among us are not good friends with CVS. But if you want to use 34 and chop of 16, that essentially means it was not 2 years, but 18 months, which may make LJ look even worse in the eyes of some people.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]burr86
2006-04-20 04:05 am UTC (link)
Right, the social contract was changed to the guiding principles back when the site was sold, and "never" was removed from the wording there. Old meme. ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]ex_shattered767, 2006-04-20 04:09 am UTC

[info]uniquewonders
2006-04-20 07:35 am UTC (link)
As one of the people who had never seen the contract but only heard of it, thank you.

It's important to have evidence. I don't know how that is something difficult to understand >_>

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]ex_shattered767
2006-04-20 07:53 am UTC (link)
Well, look at it this way: when confronted, not a single "LJ official" seems to be aknowledging the fact that LJ broke a promise. In fact, pretty much everyone appears to be blatently ignoring it.

And I highly doubt anyone's been given an honest reason as to WHY LJ thought doing this was more important than keeping a promise they made, not some bullcrap blowoff stock response. Heck, I'm not even seeing the blowoff stock responses.

Said it before, and I'll say it again. The promise was made for ads to never be put on LJ. Now we have ugly, and in some cases offensive, ads. They just promised that Paid and Permanant accounts would never see ads (while logged in). Why the heck should anyone believe them? Why should we trust anything they say now?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]uniquewonders
2006-04-20 08:00 am UTC (link)
I'm really surprised by all the negative comments in news and particularly the people saying they are so disappointed. I didn't expect that considering the comments that were made to the first so-called announcement.

I dont think they realize that they've damaged any feelings of trust and loyalty 'older' users could have. But then I don't think they're particularly interesting in keeping those. I feel like they're more interested in attracting new users and getting more active accounts.
But, all in all, it's all about the money now, which is what some people have been saying for months.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ex_shattered767
2006-04-20 08:10 am UTC (link)
I think they realize full well. But I've believed for quite some time that they've pretty much stopped caring. That lame excuse for a poll that was only up for 24 hours is not caring, no matter what they tell themselves. And more or less when I've run around telling people "hey, it looks like we/you guys/LJ doesn't care!", well, people haven't cared.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]uniquewonders
2006-04-20 08:16 am UTC (link)
True.
What is more worrying - well not for me - is that I think some people have now the feeling that they don't have to care anymore too. They don't have to make the effort of getting a paid account when they can have perks and Adblock.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]ex_shattered767, 2006-04-20 08:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-20 08:28 am UTC

(Deleted post)
(no subject) - [info]ex_shattered767, 2006-04-20 04:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]burr86, 2006-04-20 04:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ex_shattered767, 2006-04-20 05:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]burr86, 2006-04-20 05:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ex_shattered767, 2006-04-20 05:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-20 07:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]burr86, 2006-04-20 09:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ex_shattered767, 2006-04-20 09:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rahaeli, 2006-04-21 07:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ex_shattered767, 2006-04-21 07:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rahaeli, 2006-04-21 07:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ex_shattered767, 2006-04-21 08:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]foxfirefey, 2006-04-21 04:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-20 09:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]burr86, 2006-04-20 09:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-20 09:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]burr86, 2006-04-20 09:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ex_shattered767, 2006-04-20 10:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-20 10:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]burr86, 2006-04-20 10:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-20 10:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ex_shattered767, 2006-04-20 10:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rahaeli, 2006-04-21 07:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-21 07:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rahaeli, 2006-04-21 07:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-21 08:00 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rahaeli, 2006-04-21 08:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-21 08:15 am UTC

[info]donutgirl
2006-04-20 03:49 pm UTC (link)
"getting more active accounts."

and this is the stupidest motivation ever. As long as it's easy and free to create a new account, people will make new accounts for all kinds of reasons - troll accounts, special dieting journals, writing journals, style-test journals, and all of these will be abandoned sooner or later. Which is fine by me, I don't see why the LJ PTB care at all. But if they do care, they can only fix this by reinstating invite codes or something similar.

Have they simply not realized this obvious fact?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-20 07:54 pm UTC

[info]_r_e_q_u_i_e_m_
2006-04-20 01:07 pm UTC (link)
i agree- if lj jad come forward and said "look, we know we said 'never', but things have changed and we're a business and blah blah" then i wouldnt be so irate- its this sneaky manipulative 'well, you can choose, for NOW' thing thats REALLY irking me. not only do they break their word, they dont *acknowledge* that theyre breaking their word.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]donutgirl
2006-04-20 03:51 pm UTC (link)
YES.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]uniquewonders
2006-04-20 07:53 am UTC (link)
And should we bet that in... what? 14 months? free users will have ads?

I loved the "they don't garner a lot of money". What has changed? They do now? lol.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]foxfirefey
2006-04-20 08:02 am UTC (link)
Here's an entry about the level of ad revenue by [info]brad.

It's interesting to look at the possible ranges of CPC for Google's AdWords:

For example, a new advertiser paying in USD can activate their AdWords account with just US$5.00, and can then choose a maximum cost-per-click (CPC) from US$0.01 - US$100.

This is why click fraud is such a big deal nowadays. People are worried it will doom the PPC advertising model and the support of free based websites and content that comes with it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]uniquewonders
2006-04-20 08:05 am UTC (link)
Honestly, it boggles me. I've never clicked (voluntarily) on an ad in my whole life.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]foxfirefey
2006-04-20 08:20 am UTC (link)
Surpringly enough, that's actually okay. You may never have clicked on the ads, but others do, and advertisers actually only want people interested in their stuff to click on their advertising, especially since they're paying by the click. There's a term called ROI, or return on investment, that's used.

I'm also noting that AdWords might offer CPM options? That's cost per thousand impressions. So under that pay model, the loading and viewing of the ads is what makes the money.

Ironically, the fastest way to kill offensive ads that are PPC on the site might be for everyone who saw them to click on them but not buy anything. According to the theory I've read on the effects of click fraud (which are comparable to that scenario): the advertiser would pay for the advertising, their daily budget would drain and their ad wouldn't display for the rest of the day, and they wouldn't receive the revenue they needed from purchase (I'm looking at YOU, http://www.wulongforlife.com/). On the other hand, that rewards LJ monetarily for serving ads, which is something we're probably not for at this current juncture.

There are people who literally hire people to click on the advertising of their competitors to drain their advertising budget and drop their ROI. (It's shady and those people can be tried for those actions.)

Here is a Wired article on click fraud.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]ex_shattered767, 2006-04-20 08:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]foxfirefey, 2006-04-20 08:40 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]burr86, 2006-04-20 09:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]foxfirefey, 2006-04-20 09:06 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]burr86, 2006-04-20 09:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]foxfirefey, 2006-04-20 09:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-20 09:35 am UTC
Just'n'case - [info]foxfirefey, 2006-04-20 03:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-20 09:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]foxfirefey, 2006-04-20 03:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]donutgirl, 2006-04-20 03:55 pm UTC

[info]halfawake
2006-04-20 05:32 pm UTC (link)
Actually, I do remember reading the old social contract and hearing what brad said about it and I remember that while brad was (allegedly) against ever implementing ads in LiveJournal, he did have something in the social contract to the effect of "we reserve the right to change this to implement ads at any time".

...Strange that that CVS page contradicts what I remember, because I'm quite positive about it. Nevertheless, none of those CVS pages are copies of what the old social contract looked like. They're just some commentary on it without even any names added in.

This isn't saying I like it though. A big part of me feels betrayed by this since while I remember that legal stuff in the social contract, I also remember brad saying that they'd never add ads to the site. Not much I can do about it though, short of stopping using the site, which doesn't seem like a great solution to me since so many of my friends are on LiveJournal.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]foxfirefey
2006-04-20 06:32 pm UTC (link)
I thought the "we reserve the right" came after they had actual lawyers look at the original, non-written-by-lawyers Social Contract stuff and the lawyers said "this is total crap" and rewrote it to be more tight from a legal standpoint.

I mean, it probably *was* crap from a legal standpoint and all, but if I remember correctly (and it's possible I'm not), that's when it got added.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]halfawake
2006-04-20 06:57 pm UTC (link)
That's certainly possible. I just know that the "we reserve the right" stuff came before SixApart came into the scene and before they started talking about adding ads to the site.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]foxfirefey
2006-04-20 07:06 pm UTC (link)
Yes, I think it did come before SixApart.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]rahaeli
2006-04-20 07:08 pm UTC (link)
You're actually thinking of the old Terms of Service:


XII. ADVERTISEMENTS AND PROMOTIONS

LiveJournal.com has decided to remove all banner advertisements and promotions on LiveJournal.com journals. However, LiveJournal.com reserves the right to run advertisements and promotions on the LiveJournal.com service in the future. By using LiveJournal.com, you agree that LiveJournal.com has the right to run such advertisements and promotions with or without prior notice, and without recompense to you or any other user. The manner, mode and extent of advertising by LiveJournal.com on your journal are subject to change. You agree that LiveJournal.com shall not be responsible or liable for any loss or damage of any sort incurred as the result of any such dealings or as the result of the presence of such advertisers on the Service.


Now, the social contract did say "never" -- and honestly, I thought it was a bad idea at the time, because who can say what's going to become necessary three years down the line? five years? etc? And also honestly, when this whole account level was proposed, my first reaction was "fuck no". But the more I thought about it, the more I think this is the absolute best way to do it, and that doing it at all is really worth it. We've had thousands of people tell us: hey, I want to support LJ, but I don't have the money for a paid account / don't have a credit card / keep forgetting to renew / etc. Why not let those people have some features in exchange for showing some ads? It's like Salon -- if you want to read the premium content, you pay to subscribe, or you watch the ad and get the day pass....

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]halfawake
2006-04-20 07:19 pm UTC (link)
Ah yes, you're right, that is what I was thinking of. I must admit that I thought of the Terms of Service as a sort of social contract and honestly didn't realize there was a completely seperate document for that.

We've had thousands of people tell us: hey, I want to support LJ, but I don't have the money for a paid account / don't have a credit card / keep forgetting to renew / etc. Why not let those people have some features in exchange for showing some ads? It's like Salon -- if you want to read the premium content, you pay to subscribe, or you watch the ad and get the day pass....

I've gotten to the point where it bugs me, but after having read the latest [info]news post, not anywhere near the point where it'd make me want to leave LiveJournal. Because they said that they'll never put ads on my journal anywhere, since I'm a paid member, and I never would see them on sponsored user's journals. I pretty much never am on LiveJournal and not logged in, and got the impression that the users who saw ads when not logged in would only see them on sponsored user's journals, not the main page, so they'd be easy to avoid by just logging in.

I doubt it would have bothered me at all though if it weren't for the fact that [info]brad said quite adamently that he wasn't ever going to put ads on LiveJournal. But then, I guess a business is a business.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]uniquewonders
2006-04-20 08:56 pm UTC (link)
"I pretty much never am on LiveJournal and not logged in, and got the impression that the users who saw ads when not logged in would only see them on sponsored user's journals, not the main page, so they'd be easy to avoid by just logging in."

Which is clever way of decreasing the amount of anonymous comments and of increasing the number of newly created journals.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]burr86, 2006-04-20 09:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-20 09:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]burr86, 2006-04-20 10:05 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-20 10:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]burr86, 2006-04-20 10:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-20 10:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]burr86, 2006-04-20 10:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-20 10:59 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]burr86, 2006-04-20 11:05 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-20 11:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]burr86, 2006-04-21 01:17 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-21 01:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kunzite1, 2006-04-21 08:06 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]halfawake, 2006-04-20 10:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-20 11:01 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]halfawake, 2006-04-20 11:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-20 11:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]halfawake, 2006-04-20 11:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-20 11:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]halfawake, 2006-04-20 11:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-20 11:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]halfawake, 2006-04-20 11:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-21 12:00 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-04-21 12:03 am UTC

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…