Privacytools.io: Hypothetical possibility of using affiliate/referral links | Hacker News Reader

Privacytools.io: Hypothetical possibility of using affiliate/referral links

github.com

31 pointsrvnx18 comments

Perhaps put two links?

"We recommend XYZ because of ABC. They run a program that compensates us for recommending them. You can click here and we won't receive any money for the recommendation, or click here and we'll receive a small amount of money that will be put towards our own development. As soon as, and if we ever decide to not recommend XYZ, we will remove both links."

Or whatever.

I saw this first at moneysavingexpert.com and appreciated how transparent they were. The average consumer may not know about affiliate links.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/site/moneysavingexpert-fin...

Inaccurate title? Link mentions a discussion on a "hypothetical" situation. Nowhere do I see that they will add links or listings.

Funny how the thread even mentions how the discussion itself can start rumors.

Yep, that should be updated.

While I understand the desire to make some money, as soon as you mix an altruistic effort with a moneymaking one, the former is muddled.

Sure, maybe it would 100% have no impact on decisions. The real problem is ... how would a user know? I struggle with this when listening to NPR and hearing the programming is "possible due to [huge corporate sponsor]" I want to believe NPR would not be influenced to not run or minimize a story about a sponsor, but the uncertainty makes their coverage less trustworthy to me.

That applies here. Sure, you're telling me Brave is the best choice and maybe that's true, but I also know you have a financial benefit from convincing me of that.

Private donations from users via crowdfunding is the only system that mitigates this. Maybe they just need to better promote those.

The solution is the programs they link to, such as Brave Browser should just donate. Though it is up to privacytool.io to set up the system to allow this.

This doesn't solve that problem at all. Now you have something that looks like pay for play.

I once created a project based on affiliate links and I researched the implications of this a lot.

I came to the conclusion for a corporate project it's a very elegant way to make money, as theoretically it's a win-win for everone involved.

But there is one big problem, especially for smaller projects where the people who write the content also manage the website: Subconciously you start identifying with the products you recommend.

It's easy to lie to yourself. Like one guy on the github thread, suggesting

> "Another benefit of more income from affiliate: We could fund small privacy open source software / service projects in form of donations, too.

If the project would be able to even fund other projects with running on affiliate money, then it would also be possible to live off donation or a shop and simply focus on your own project.

There is only one way of having a project that sides with the users: Actually getting the money directly from the users.

With affiliate links the products you recommend become your customers, so you start to become accountable towards them, and the users become your product.

This happens slowly over time and mostly subconsciously. At first everything seems to be ok, but at one point all the relevant questions resolve around how to please the affiliate customers.

If Brave or any similar service is worth of being listed on privacytools.io - Why would they spend and provide you with the affiliated money? After all - if this team finds the software in matter, a valuable to be added, you will add it anyway.

Taking affiliate will result in loosing the trust I have, honestly.

Do you think/fear that they will bribed to suggest something shady just so they can collect on the affiliate link? I have been trusting them as a source for a couple of years now, and I believe that for (the majority of) us here in HN, the moment we see they start feeding us garbage, a) we will call them out in this forum, b) we will leave them so fast their heads will spin.

I am rather thinking that, let us say "App XYZ" is super secure and PrivacyTools lists them without affiliation.

Later after sometime if App XYZ offers affiliate, why would they pay PrivacyTools since the app is listed free anyway?

If anything - PrivacyTools should expect donations, not affiliated or marketing revenue.

And I honestly think - they can also go in the direction of having a minimal monthly subscription fee.

I think there is a big difference between "hidden" affiliate links, or even hiding behind fake personas (aka https://uk.pcmag.com/news-analysis/120580/how-a-vpn-review-s...), and being honest about what is going on.

Most people will be aware that affiliate links will affect content a tiny bit, but if the authors are fairly trustworthy and honest people, I think that works.

And if they did, what’s wrong with it? People are not allowed to make money? As long as they don’t prioritize based on affiliation I don’t see a problem.

I guess that what people are worried about is the fact that there is no way to really know if the prioritization that was made was based on the affiliation or not.

Sure, I can see that, but this is true of just about anything that includes any sort of paid promotion or linking. Wirecutter makes money off amazon but people trust them to be honest? I’m not saying we shouldn’t, quite the opposite. It wasn’t that long ago I was of the opposite opinion if you just check my comment history. Recently I’ve decided to put a little more faith into human beings and give them the benefit of the doubt. Yes money is a motivator but I think there can be a balance between earning on affiliate links and presenting unbiased recommendations.

  what’s wrong with it?

A belief that, when the subject of the report is handing over cash and free samples to the reporter, "unbiased" reporting won't actually be unbiased.

You see this in loads of situations, even those with ethics codes and suchlike. From Youtubers and Instagram influencers all the way to professional games journalists and national newspapers' lifestyle magazines.

You speak as if everyone abides by some ethics standards where people cannot make honest assessments and recommendations without being influenced by money. I just don’t get it, people here seem to have a hard on for wirecutter but mention affiliate marketing and we are all scumbags for even considering it. I’m generalizing too, but so are you.

  people here seem to have a hard on for wirecutter

Not me, I've seen https://www.xdesk.com/wirecutter-standing-desk-review-pay-to... † - precisely the sort of observations that make people suspicious of shill reviewers.

† which admittedly wirecutter disagree with https://thewirecutter.com/our-response-to-nextdesk/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com