They supposedly can be disabled in settings- but we all know that won’t last. They’re going full Microsoft Skype mode and it’s only a matter of time.
They supposedly can be disabled in settings- but we all know that won’t last. They’re going full Microsoft Skype mode and it’s only a matter of time.
So they’re still showing ads to paying users. This shit should be illegal.
Why should that be illegal?? It’s definitely disgusting, but if the paid customers don’t want to see ads (they don’t), then they will leave. I don’t see how or why to make it illegal to show ads to paid users.
edit: I didn’t really say that right, I just think that this is a complex problem, and saying “oh just make it illegal” is not a realistic solution. Some antitrust regulation is good for innovation, some more might be worse for innovation, and we need to be realistic about that, and not just act like we can regulate it all and then there will be 5 competing discords or whatever.
because at a certain critical threshold, which I think discord has reached, expecting users to simply stop using a platform when it is the only platform remaining for such tasks is shortsighted and ignores the true monopoly that’s been created.
See: Facebook and it’s complete consumption of most social media, VR headsets, and for-sale pages largely replacing Craigslist. If I want to buy or sell cars it’s basically impossible to do without Facebook Marketplace. I hate giving data to them.
You probably still think prices are determined by supply and demand.
No they won’t. The whole point of a platform like Discord is to bind its users to it. At first because the platform itself offers good value, and second because of network effects. Once you’re good and hogtied the bullshit barrage begins.
It’s the default enshittification playbook.
Enshittification isn’t illegal though. And making it illegal sounds pretty draconian and anti liberal to me.
I, for one, will never pay for discord, and if the communities I do use it for decide to move elsewhere, I’ll happily move over.
It’s definitely not “draconian” to make enshittification illegal. But you don’t regulate the turning-to-shit part. You regulate the part where they offer a service for free or too cheap so that they kill the competition. This is called anti-competitive and we supposedly address it already. You also regulate what an EULA can enforce and the ability of companies to change the EULA after a user has agreed to it. Again, these concepts already exist in law.
We’ve essentially already identified these problems and we have decided that we need to address them, but we been ineffective in doing so for various reasons.
Yups, that’s what I was getting at. There can be very good reasons to do things that are impopular with end users.
At the same time, without reddit turning to shit, Lemmy wouldn’t have thrived the way it is now. Change is part of life, as is platforms turning to shit. You move over and learn to deal with it. You might be able to nudge it in the right direction, but in the end, corporations gonna corporate.
Yeah that’s true, and I agree trying to regulate enshittification out of existence will probably have some heavy handed implications. However I do think it’s worth rethinking how network effects as extreme as Discord implements them relate to monopoly.
You could simply not use the service instead.
It’s not as simple as that, which is why e. g. laws to control monopolies exist. Just look at the recent changes in rulings regarding essential services, right to repair etc.
This is really an outdated, “the market will regulate itself” perspective that has been shown time and again to not work - people just get fucked by corporations.
What a dense comment.
You want the government to regulate discord? That’s a new one. Hadn’t heard that position before.
You don’t? In civilized countries, companies don’t just get to do whatever they want.
I thought Discord was USA-based.
Right, which is why they mentioned civilized countries in comparison. Over here in the US, yes, companies get to do whatever they want.
Ideally, it wouldn’t be regulating Discord specifically. It would be regulating the business practices and advertising methods. If Discord is affected, then it sucks for them. But it wouldn’t be something specific to Discord. It would simply regulate how companies are able to go about including ads on their programs, especially when it comes to interactive ads and player rewards.
Wow you’re serious.
So create a law to prevent something that charges money from showing ads? It would have to be pretty targeted because that’s how the rest of media works. Magazines, newspapers, cable television…. It’s an age old model you’d be fighting.
No, it’s not about whether or not it’s a paid service. It’s about the fact that the ads are interactive, require users to complete in-game “challenges” for rewards, require users to go live and stream their game, etc…
I’ve got some news for you about Magazines, newspapers, and cable television in the past couple of decades…
They’re made obsolete by internet devices which also have advertising?
I’m not tracking with the logic here. A ban on advertising? I’m an app dev. I’m not allowed to put an ad in an app? What about paid placement, is that ok?
Wanting a nanny state to punish software devs for putting ads in applications is a fine way to not have software devs in your country.
I didn’t say it should be banned, but I think this is not a very good defense for just about anything:
You cited three age-old institutions that had their legacy business models destroyed the very moment consumers could escape them.
I already barely use discord (after all these years I have only joined two servers, and both make my eyes bleed every time I look at them) - and I can get along just fine without those communities if they make it the tiniest bit less pleasant for me as a consumer.
The only reason I use it at all is for a small number of niche communities that aren’t very active elsewhere. My life would be nearly exactly the same as it is today if I never visited those communities again.
Not in a million years will I pay for discord, and if their ads can’t be blocked, they better be damn near invisible or I’m out. Considering I’ve never heard one person say how much they enjoy using Discord, I feel confident there are a great many others in the same boat.
It’s also how the internet works. I left it off because it was the subject of the comment. People didn’t flee those because of the advertising. People left because the internet is undeniably better by being larger, more convenient, timely, and is a 2-way comms channel. Advertising still drives everything there.
I use discord as my primary work app. If they add ads, I’ll likely move to something else also. And that’s the point. Platforms should be free to do whatever they want and consumers are free to react.
I fled cable because of advertising and prices.
I fled traditional newspapers because they were no longer needed, and their prices, and have not paid for one since then in any form. There are many facets to the shittiness of the newspaper industry, but IIRC they seemed to think they didn’t need to worry about their old business model until it was too late.
Same for magazines, although I generally view them more favorably than either of the others or Discord - and some magazines have very much been criticized over the years for being far too much advertising for the value/content they provided.
The underlying point is - when you are the only game in town, as discord currently de-facto is (as cable once was, and as newspapers and magazines once were), you can treat your users like shit. To a point. There are already other options, and people already don’t enjoy the experience. Giving users a choice of “pay us or we’ll make it even shittier” is going to end exactly like those others.
I just want to reiterate again, I haven’t called for banning of anything. My reaction is to call out that they are taking a shitty product and making it shittier. Their own greed will hasten their demise. (Like cable, at a minimum.)
various edits due to typos etc
You need to get out more.
Why is that