Is that what’s happening here? What’s the name of this process?
In the 2016 blog post announcing the acquisition: http://blog.instapaper.com/post/149374303661
> All of these features and developments revolved around the core mission of Instapaper, which is allowing our users to discover, save, and experience interesting web content. In that respect, there is a lot of overlap between Pinterest and Instapaper. Joining Pinterest provides us with the additional resources and experience necessary to achieve that shared mission on a much larger scale.
Is that no longer true? Was it ever true?
He's not active on HN, but he jumps in for quick damage control and "clarification" when people have vaguely privacy-related or operational questions about Instapaper. When followup questions are posed, particularly more difficult ones, he never responds. So I find it very unlikely you're going to get an answer here, because this account is clearly designed to do low-touch public reassurance without much commitment or transparency.
Now take a look at Instapaper's privacy policy: https://www.instapaper.com/privacy. In particular, direct your attention to the following, under "The Way We Use Information":
(P1) We use the information you provide to operate Instapaper's features. We do not share this information with outside parties except to the extent necessary to accomplish Instapaper's functionality.
(P3) We use non-identifying and aggregate information to better design Instapaper, to suggest popular content to users, and to share with advertisers and publishers. For example: ...
(P6) In the future, we may sell, buy, merge, or partner with other companies or businesses. In such transactions, user information may be among the transferred assets.
The "License Grant" section of the Terms of Service is also good reading, because it indicates that they can use user data in perpetuity, even after closing your Instapaper account (presumably until you explicitly request your information being deleted). What do you suppose that is used for? Maybe Brian can enlighten us.
My hypothesis is that Instapaper, either from the outset or somewhere prior to being acquired by Pinterest, developed a monetization model dependent upon selling user data (or derivative analysis/features of user data) to third parties. Most likely this is provided for market research or advertising optimization. Note that in their Privacy Policy Instapaper also states they use cookies "and other tracking technology" (and they specifically do not enumerate the full number of reasons which they do so, aside from normal login and session maintenance) in their Privacy Policy.
Further, I'm going to go ahead and assume this can be explained through basic cynicism. This monetization model was probably never terribly significant for Pinterest, except insofar as it was useful for internal discussions and inspirations for ways Pinterest could improve upon their own user data analysis. When GDPR came along, this probably tipped the scales to make Instapaper a net liability for the company (and not one in line with its financial or brand goals). Thus we have Instapaper being cut lose, yet again.
Your points make me wonder... If you're running a small successful and independent sass, that respects its users, and you want to move on. What do you do, if your only options are selling to a large company that won't respect your users, or shutting down? Is it plausible to find a buyer that will honestly maintain a user-respecting ethos? If not, then it seems that there are no good choices for a founder in this position.
> We won't try to flip your business in 3-5 years. We won't mess with your team and culture. We won't lock you into golden handcuffs or push complex deal terms. We won't ruin your life with months of unnecessary due diligence. We won't renegotiate and grind you on terms.
> …
> We started Tiny to create the buyer we wish we could have sold to.
Background: https://medium.com/@awilkinson/the-berkshire-hathaway-of-the...
To my knowledge, no one else makes similar commitments to both keep good things as-is and also to buy and hold indefinitely. At least from the outside, Tiny's model is unique.
Even though I hate the fallout that impacts me as a user, I'm generally happy to see financial success come to those that made something cool (if you didn't make promises to the contrary). Committing to NOT selling out tends to just tie the hands (and wallets) of those that are giving me what I want, so that doesn't seem to be a good option. But this is a good option, at least as advertised: Sell out to someone that will try to make sure your customers don't resent the results.
Looking over their list of companies I don't believe I've worked with any of them - does anyone have actual experiences to share?
Andrew and the rest of the Tiny crew seem to do a great job of standing behind what they say, from my limited experience.
With respect to follow ups, I usually respond and move on to other things. I do my best to be open and transparent in online communities like these.
Moving onto your privacy concerns there are two things I'd like to say...
* Instapaper has always done hard deletes of user data when you delete articles or your account, it's been done that way since the Marco days.
* We have never monetized using user data, or developed any type of special targeted advertising for Instapaper.
2. You've just said, "We have never monetized using user data, or developed any type of special targeted advertising for Instapaper." How is this statement congruent with paragraph 3 of "The Way We Use Information" in the Instapaper Privacy Policy [2]? Quoting:
- We may tell an advertiser or publisher that X number of people visited a certain area on our website
- We may tell an advertiser or publisher that X number of people bookmarked Z stories from a particular site or topic.
I'm going to be blunt with you, Brian: I don't believe what you're saying to me right now. At best I believe you're stating things which are superficially true but skating around the spirit of people's intent when they ask about privacy policies and how user data is being used.
Unless you have a fantastic answer for these two questions, I don't see how what you've just said is reconcilable with your privacy policy or terms of service. Literally "selling" user data is not the only way in which user data is monetized. Monetizing user data by providing derivative or curated analytics pertaining to that data is also substantial monetization of that user data. If advertisers developed their own special targeting for Instapaper users on or off the Instapaper platform based on the data you shared with them, then as a matter of fact yes, you did help in developing specialized targeting for advertisements.
To summarize thus far: you have effectively given me a non-answer, in consideration of the statements on Instapaper's TOS and Privacy Policy. And despite taking the time to respond to my comment (presumably because I challenged you directly), you have not responded to the parent commenter who originally asked you the question that started this thread.
EDIT: I'm not sure what's triggering these downvotes, but if someone downvoting has a substantial refutation or insight, it would be nice if you shared with the class instead of just pressing a button. As it stands Brian has not responded to the substance of my point, and it seems virtually self-evident according to the Privacy Policy that Instapaper monetizes user data. It's not much of a leap from there to assume that this revenue was no longer worth it for Pinterest after GDPR came into effect.
__________________________
> We use non-identifying and aggregate information to better design Instapaper, to suggest popular content to users, and to share with advertisers and publishers.
and this afterwards:
> When information is used in this or a similar manner, we do not disclose anything that could be used to identify the individuals on whom the information is based.
I suppose using aggregate data in that manner could technically be described as “monetiz[ing] using user data”, but it’s not the type of activity most people are worried about (nor, incidentally, something that would implicate the GDPR).
As for the ToS license grant, it’s presumably the type of cover-your-ass wording lawyers always put into those agreements. I’m not a fan of the practice myself, but it’s not really evidence that Instapaper does, or intends to, use user data after deletion. Also, it might be intended to address backups, though I’m just speculating.
And (tinfoil /on) if you were planning on winding down, compliance development is exactly the kind of thing that would be stopped. Shutter that, prior to shuttering everything else.
[1] https://therivardreport.com/jungle-disk-finds-a-home-in-down... [2] https://www.xconomy.com/texas/2017/12/05/jungle-disk-buys-ca... / https://www.startupssanantonio.com/jungle-disk-announces-acq...
Not always. Fastmail was bought (back) from Opera by employees and they are doing fine.
That and Opera was turning more into an advertising company, which wasn't a close fit with our existing user base. It's great to be in a position where we don't have split loyalties and "shadow customers" - leaving us able to focus on what's best for the people paying us for the service we provide.
I wish more companies adopted this approach to commerce.
It's a lot of work to spin the company and losing talented people that they might want to keep.
Didn't Marco create it and run it independently for over 5 years?
I guess that gave him some runway to try new things.
Besides, it seems like the team from Betaworks has been working on Instapaper since then.
I'm not sure how your reply relates to the statement I was replying to?
I looked it up on Marco's about page and he did run it for 5 years before selling it in 2013.
I guess I don't see how that's "being passed around... since birth."
Although honestly I am not a fan of the recent UI changes, which are presumably done for monetization. An explanation would be nice as I am mystified. I guess a redesign is a way to make more room for ads without making it completely obvious.
If a company puts a specific operation in its own legal entity, then it usually wants to sell it, or segregate risk, or for tax planning.