What has been the response to the Linux Today editorial?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| pben Jun 08, 2004 9:50 AM EDT |
I am wondering what has been the feedback on the Linux Today Microsoft ads editorial? I have been visiting that site a lot less since I found out about LXer on The Linux Show broadcast. I usually just find it amusing that Microsoft is paying a Linux site, but I trust all ads and politicians a lot less than I used to, lied to one too may times I guess. |
| dave Jun 08, 2004 10:48 AM EDT |
The feedback is mixed. Some people absolutely hated me after the editorial. Although I tried to maintain a level-headed tone and just state the simple facts of it, I think the subject matter itself might have been best served being brought up by someone else (rather than me). A lot of folks didn't know about the ads, and it's good that they know now. Some expressed concern over it, and others were perfectly comfortable with it. I've say it was 50/50 all around. If I had to do it over again, I wouldn't have posted the story. Dave |
| cjcox Jun 08, 2004 11:08 AM EDT |
Yes... I told Dave I never saw them.. I use privoxy! (proxy with configurable ad blocking... well.. it's just a configurable proxy!) So there is at least one person who will never see the ad regardless of how much money Microsoft spends. |
| Vision Jun 08, 2004 11:42 AM EDT |
I, for one, am glad you posted the message Dave. I had previously been using NewsForge and really only looked at Linux Today as it tied into my Evolution Summary page, and had never been to LXer, however now am an avid reader and keep checking it every few hours. Had you not posted the article there, It would have taken me that much longer to find this wonderful site. Thanks. |
| golem Jun 08, 2004 2:55 PM EDT |
I did see the ads -- three of them simultaneously at one point -- and thought them highly inappropriate. I wondered who was asleep at the switch. I'm glad Dave spoke up. If he hadn't, someone would have. |
| sbergman27 Jun 08, 2004 5:03 PM EDT |
I'm glad you posted the story, Dave. I use privoxy and normally do not see ads. But I was aware of them and had not spoken out against the policy. I assumed that LT did not have control of the ad stream and would have to give up all the ad revenue to get rid of the FUD ads. I've learned since that they probably have finer control than that. There is no excuse for a Linux site to knowingly present misleading ads either for or against Linux, no matter who sponsors them. I would not personally take money to make false statements about Linux and I certainly don't approve of a website which does so. |
| cjcox Jun 08, 2004 8:10 PM EDT |
Is there a legal issue here? I mean freedom of speech and all. If I accept money from one advertiser for a space, can I reject another? Perhaps this opens a very large can of worms?? |
| Koriel Jun 09, 2004 5:22 AM EDT |
Freedom is eaxctly that the ability to pick and choose your preferred advertisers, certainly can't be construed as a legal problem in the UK at least. They are allowed to produce their adverts, that does not mean i am forced to carry them. Have to agree with Dave that the adverts were inappropriate for the site content. A Linux geared site should carry adverts geared to their majority audience not to who gives them the most money. Of course i much prefer a site that has no ads at all. My tuppence worth |
| tbogart Jun 09, 2004 5:36 PM EDT |
Another FWIW - I saw the ads, thought it odd, but it was your post that clued me to the change in ownership and the existence of lxer - which I now use INSTEAD of LT. Cheers. |
| Void_Main Jun 13, 2004 2:03 PM EDT |
This message was edited Jul 5, 2004 3:28 PM |
| MESMERIC Jun 15, 2004 10:40 PM EDT |
It's pretty simple:
If you hadn't posted your story people wouldn't have known about your LXer site.
If you hadn't posted your story - some people would remain complacent.
The site now offers Microsoft Webcast and Windows XP Tablet PC adds. Any strong action you do will (mostly) incur a strong reaction, specially in TechieLand. I think it was proper you brought the notice. |
| nuno Jun 16, 2004 2:37 AM EDT |
You did well in posting the message Dave! I knew your site thanks to it. Personaly, I don't care about who the publicity on the site is from! But it was becoming quite bothering of having a 3rd of the browser window full with it :-( So, please... keep your site simple :-) |
| northcarolinian Jun 16, 2004 11:53 AM EDT |
Dave, why the slam against Linux Today and not Linux.com? Both accept M$ ads, yet you continue to link to Newsforge/linux.com, which is now one site. |
| dave Jun 16, 2004 11:57 AM EDT |
I've never considered OSDN to be a part of the Linux community. Not to say they aren't, but they are not on my radar in this regard. dave |
| northcarolinian Jun 16, 2004 5:20 PM EDT |
Linux.com and Slashdot are not part of the Linux community but internet.com, with its multiple Windows sites, is? Sounds like you're going through contortions to rationalize your attack. |
| dave Jun 16, 2004 6:16 PM EDT |
northcarolinian, I'm not trying to rationalize anything at all, certainly not my editorial. Read above: I already said that if I could go back in time, I wouldn't have posted it. That's not what someone says when they're trying to rationalize something. :-) Dave |
| northcarolinian Jun 17, 2004 7:25 AM EDT |
Fair enough, Dave! Thanks for the response. |
| Void_Main Jun 17, 2004 7:49 AM EDT |
This message was edited Jul 5, 2004 3:29 PM |
| dave Jun 17, 2004 8:00 AM EDT |
Void, Thank you very much for reporting this advertisement to me! As you can imagine, I am sensitive to this, and I keep a close eye on the advertisements that Google syndicates on our website. This particular one has escaped my attention. Now that it has been brought to my attention, I, unlike my competitors, have moved immediately to block this url from my ad filters. Thanks again, and I assure you that no more ads from Microsoft.com will appear on my site again (unless Google breaks and does it in spite of my blocking it). If you find any others like that, please don't hesitate to let me know, so I can block them also. dave |
| Void_Main Jun 17, 2004 8:12 AM EDT |
This message was edited Jul 5, 2004 3:29 PM |
| dave Jun 17, 2004 8:23 AM EDT |
You're welcome, and heartful thanks for reporting it. If you see anything else (pro-SCO, pro-Microsoft, or anti-Linux, etc) please do report it! I'm happy to lose their revenue rather than send my readers to them. dave |
| northcarolinian Jun 17, 2004 11:47 AM EDT |
"I'm happy to lose their revenue rather than send my readers to them." But you lose no revenue by the ad simply appearing; you lose revenue if a reader does not click through on the ad. (You're mischaracterizing how Google works, and it makes your stand sound a whole lot noble than it really is.) Isn't it a little condescending to not give your reader that choice? I mean, if one of your readers is interested enough to click through (and I agree that it's highly unlikely), aren't you also assuming that they're too dumb to reject the M$ message? Open source doesn't need paternal protectionism like this, Dave. Trust your readers. |
| dave Jun 17, 2004 12:03 PM EDT |
I won't be party to Microsoft publishing anti-Linux propaganda. As a Linux-related news website, I don't think that would make good business sense, in the long-term. By taking that ad down, I am losing any revenue that would have been generated by people clicking on that ad. I find it ironic that, if I hadn't taken the ad down, I would only have gotten paid if people actually clicked on the ad. Thus, I would have only been paid in the event that MS successfully got the attention of a person. Gag. dave |
| Void_Main Jun 17, 2004 12:06 PM EDT |
This message was edited Jul 5, 2004 3:30 PM |
| northcarolinian Jun 17, 2004 12:26 PM EDT |
> I won't be party to Microsoft publishing anti-Linux propaganda. < I assume you mean that you won't be party to Microsoft advertising their anti-Linux propaganda; you surely are not suggesting that free speech (even commercial speech) be curtailed because you disagree with it. OK, I can see not running the ads from Google. Personally, I think it's cuttting off your nose to spite your face, but it's your face, and I think it may give you an undeserved reputation as a zealot. And I think you're going to limit your audience far more than you realize; it seems to me that most Linux users are a lot more pragmatic than you give them credit for. Even Nick Petreley, who foams at the mouth at the mention of M$, says that the call of a boycott was silly and he would happily take M$'s money. |
| dave Jun 17, 2004 12:35 PM EDT |
Nothing to add here! :) Thanks for the interesting discourse. dave |
| Void_Main Jun 17, 2004 12:42 PM EDT |
This message was edited Jul 5, 2004 3:30 PM |
| gareth Jun 17, 2004 3:09 PM EDT |
I too had been disgusted by the anti-Linux adverts appearing on Linux websites. LinuxPlanet.com was particularly bad - having read your editorial however I have boycotted Linux Today. But more on the basis that you founded the site originally, and are requesting a boycott of it. |
| northcarolinian Jun 18, 2004 10:37 AM EDT |
Fair enough, Dave! Thanks for the discussion. Good luck with the site -- it looks great. |
| dave Jun 18, 2004 10:40 AM EDT |
'preciate it. :) |
| tbogart Jun 21, 2004 6:16 PM EDT |
Well, I hesitate to stretch this discussion out - but there are limitations to this 'freedom'. Just as 'plug in your favorite minority here' can't be forced to sit in the back of the bus, or prevented from voting, or being denied service at a lunch counter, racial/religous bias can't be used as a reason for not doing business with someone. Not doing business with an entity that is on the losing end of so many lawsuits and the first entity in umpteen years to be found in violation of anit-trust law is pretty clearly (to me, anyway) with the rules. We live under the rule of law, such as it is, not pure anarchy. Cheers. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [Editors, MEMBERS, SITEADMINS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!