[clue-talk] CLUE LinkedIn group

[Nate Duehr]

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:38:42 -0600, "Jed S. Baer"

> The 2nd half of that is patently false. They can view outclicks only if
> they're specifically using JavaScript or some sort of beacon to capture
> the data. It doesn't have anything to do with "standards" on the
> internet. For that matter, it's certainly possible for a web browser to
> not send referrer information, and I know of at least one case where
> Galeon does not.

I disagree with you here... 

While you might not like their use of them, not too many sites AREN'T
using JavaScript these days, and yes... beacons and other crapola ARE
the standard nowadays, really... if you think about it.  

Try finding a website that's offering a "FREE" service on the Net that
isn't using them.

> I can see the benefit of social networking. Any sites out there that
> aren't run by lying spammers?

They're called BBSs and we left them back with our 1200 baud modems in
1985.  Real communities, real people.  Oh, there's also LUGs, they're
pretty nice!  :-) ;-)

Seriously though -- none of these sites has a valid business model
that's sustainable.  But they're more interesting and "shiny" than other
more banal things on the web... so people assume they're business
successes... if they play their cards right, people capitalize them via
their IPO and later via holding the stock, and the books are as cooked
as the banks were prior to their meltdown.

It all could have been different, if people had decided they would PAY
for social networking and other things on the Net directly -- without
wanting advertising and other "click-through" revenue paying the server
farm bills.  

"FREE" is showing its unholy power over people, once again.  (As
discussed and studied heavily in Behaviorial Economics circles for the
last ten years.  People do ANYTHING to get the "FREE" thing, even if
it's got much less intrinsic or extrinsic value than something else
that's very inexpensive, but not "FREE!".)

Even the wonder-child... Google... I always see Google's "no evil"
mantra and think... "Yeah, I've heard that before..."

Thus, while I have a Gmail account, I have only once tried making it my
primary account, and went back to paying a very good company, that has a
vested interest in our mutual business relationship, to handle the
mail... and at the "exorbitant" price of $14.95 a year... I'd say it's a
better deal than Gmail any day of the week!

But that's me... 

And you're you -- but I think you've got a personal problem with
click-throughs and all of that stuff.  Guess what...?  The only reason
they want that stuff is to get their advertisers to send them more cash
to run the site.  No one there (or anywhere else for that matter) cares
where you or the millions of other folks surf on a micro-level... it's
just too much raw data.  Unless you've gotten a personal enemy somewhere
inside their company who also just happens to have direct access to the
raw data collected -- the chances anyone's going to use the data
collected by them of your surf-through habits in any kind of serious
"attack vector" toward your life, is nil.   

Yawn... all this controversy about boring stuff like tracking website
use makes me bored.  It is happening, will continue to happen, and
really doesn't matter much.  Other people see me walk down the street,
go to the gas station, drive my car, and do a whole bunch of other
things too... they care about seeing me do that as much as I can about
seeing them do it... none.

What's the REAL risk here?  You annoy your friends by accident with
requests to join the social network.  That's far more damaging than
anything the doofuses running the social network site are going to come
up with.  Hell, as we pointed out above... they aren't even smart enough
to have a viable, long-term business model.  They're not exactly the
brightest apples on the tree -- now, are they?

Nate 
--
  Nate Duehr
  nate at natetech.com