To date I've seen no logic that shows how any of reddit/spezs actions will actually increase profit.
Making a wild claim about how much 3rd party apps "cost them", is not the same as actually seeing revenue once those 3rd party apps are closed.
As most people have been saying, the majority of 3rd party app users are the more advanced technical savvy ones.
There may be SOME percentage of the 3rd party app users who transition, but if the 3rd party traffic is as trivially small as Reddit has claimed, not sure how that will overnight magically transform them into being profitable.
I've never seen an Ad on reddit with use of old.reddit.com , RES, and adblockers. I was a primary user of Apollo, and I certainly won't be using the reddit mobile app. I deleted the app off my phone once the writing is on the wall (rip the bandaid off now and detox vs in 9 days), my phone reported my usage is down 19% this week, so that is a plus.
Absent any business plan on how those actions will actually drive profit, everything they've done has had sole effect of alienating their power user, mods, etc. and I don't see how that helps profit.
> There may be SOME percentage of the 3rd party app users who transition, but if the 3rd party traffic is as trivially small as Reddit has claimed, not sure how that will overnight magically transform them into being profitable.
he said 97% of users are on the reddit app. he also said there is a significant opportunity cost to having those 3% of users not on the app. so for both of those statements to be true that 3% of users must be very active and providing a lot of content and value.
And he’s alienated virtually all third-party apps, putting those 3% user at high risk of just leaving the platform, destroying that supposedly huge opportunity cost.
A competent CEO would have found a way to keep them in the family.
If the speaker was setting out to bullshit you, "significant opportunity cost" could mean a lot of things.
Perhaps they mean a non-financial opportunity cost, like they could modify their API if they didn't have third parties depending on it, and they're missing out on the benefits such modifications might hypothetically provide.
Or perhaps "significant cost" means, say, $100k per year. Significant at a human scale, insignificant at the scale of a multi-billion-dollar company.
> I've never seen an Ad on reddit with use of old.reddit.com , RES, and adblockers.
Which is why they're trying to force everyone onto their first party app. If you're not contributing to revenue they do not want you on the site.
They have much more data than we do which leads me to think they have reason to believe most third party app users will switch/the ones that won't arent worth having anyway.
I think this is just pure arrogance. Some of the best content creators on the planet aren't technical. In fact, very few of technical people are good content creators. We just like to think we're so good.
Reddit doesn’t like to remember it, but it’s fundamentally a site where users provide content, and only a small fraction of users provide the most popular content (and do moderation). Those fraction tend to be the more advanced users that use things like third party apps or RES. So hurting those users is decreasing the amount of free work that the users give to Reddit, which means that either the site decreases in quality (less revenue) or Reddit needs to pay employees to do the same work (higher costs).
The cost of the third party apps themselves was trivial, and if they just wanted to recoup those costs they could have proposed a much more reasonable cost per user for third party apps.
That’s what they wanted to charge - Reddit only makes $0.13/user/mo, so their cost must be less than that (or else Reddit has much bigger problems), so let’s say $0.05/user/mo. Apollo has 2 million users, so $1.2 million per year.
Moreover, at that cost, less than a dollar per user per year, Apollo could have instituted a $1/year subscription. But instead Reddit wanted over $100 per user per year, two orders of magnitude more than the cost.
This is rather limited thinking though. The value of the platform is ultimately in it's content, and if those 3% of users on 3rd party apps are highly influential in driving content, then by driving them away you will harm overall value.
It's one of those typically short sighted "oh lets remove this thing costing us" without understanding the long term impact to value.
It's kind of interesting though because a lot of people using 3rd party apps have proven they are willing to pay for a good experience (Apollo had a subscription I think, RIF has a paid tier, etc...). So instead of charging apps for API access, just require all access through a 3rd party app require authenticated users, and those authenticated users must pay a monthly fee to use third party apps.
You don't over burden one single entity with large recurring payments (the app developers themselves), your power users provide revenue, and you can slowly work on your value proposition of "hey we have updated our app to not be as crappy, you can browse reddit for free if you switch back".
> To date I've seen no logic that shows how any of reddit/spezs actions will actually increase profit.
I think you assume that the only people using it are shutting down while obivously there are lots of profitable companies using the API who will obivously be fine with paying $0.24 per 1,000 API requests.
Then there is obivously OpenAI and other AI based companies that are really the main reason for the change.
Realistically, having Apollo, etc not there drives people to use the main app. Saying that people won't switch over seems naive. There will be some that won't be realistically the vast majority probably will. And those users then go back into monetization drives. Which will increase revenues.
When I was younger, watching post apocalyptic shows and movies made me think/fantasize what I would do to survive in such situations (and usually rate myself pretty well in being able to survive).
Now, I'm much more "F** that S**" and would take a quick painless death over long drawn out misery.
Those movies were lying to make a point; they were trying to terrify people and succeeded, not trying to make them survive if it actually happened. It's rare that you would see a thoughtful film about surviving and rebuilding the world after it, because it is beyond the scope of film and doesn't have the hook that fear brings.
Don't take things too seriously. Remember all the movies about the internet in the 1990s.
In the event of a fire, "opening" the window is not necessarily a function of if the window is MEANT to be opened ... but CAN it be opened. Eg: throwing a chair through it, or firefighters breaking window from outside, etc.
Republicans have been trying to hold Democrats to a higher standard for 40 years, all the while playing low ball ... it has been a GREAT strategy for them that is nearing end game (courts stacked, gerrymandering, control of state houses, etc)
The "other side" has ZERO capacity/will/desire to ACTUALLY engage in meaningful dialog , but sole goal is to "win" no matter what the cost.
There is no logical appeal that can sway the state-level propaganda and brainwashing that billions have been spent on over the last 40 years.
Anyone who thinks only one of the two sides refuses to engage in meaningful dialog makes me think they have drunk far too much Kol-Aid from on side or the other. The fact of the matter is that nether side has tried to engage in reasonable dialog and exploration of the other sides views because it's apparently not good politics to due so. Both side's take a few random snapshots from extremists on twitter and try to paint the entire other side with that brush despite there being much more common ground between voters of the two camps. A significant proportion of "politically engaged" democrats think that half our country are literally Nazis and many "politically engaged" republicans have equally ridiculous caricatures about the average dem voter.
A written signed document is not the only way to make a legal agreement, it's just the most easily referenced and proven one. The parents consented to letting a professional photographer take photos of their child to use in commercial work, and nobody appears to dispute that.
He can say whatever he wants, but that would seem extremely unlikely.
Major record companies have legal departments. They're not going to greenlight an album cover without rights to the images. Anyone who works in publishing knows how strictly this stuff is treated at a major label.
Accepting payment is usually understood to indicate acceptance of the terms of a contract. A contract generally requires: offer, acceptance, a clear intention to interact (create a legal relationship), and consideration (money or goods/services). One very interesting example of the significance of accepting payment is the lease for the Guantanamo Bay naval facility.[1]
Not a lawyer but I sat jury duty on a contract dispute.
A verbal agreement absolutely can be an enforceable contract. The crux is whether there was a meeting of the minds. Of course, without documentation this is hard to prove, so you find people arguing it either direction in legal disputes.
Without an explicit contract I think it would be hard to argue they consented to commercial use of the photo, even if they accepted a payment at the time.
What else would they have thought they were getting paid for? A picture was taken, and they got paid; the only logical reason for them to be paid would be that there was some commercial value to the photo.
Does it really matter? The evidentiary standard is "preponderance of the evidence" so it's pretty much up to the defendant to prove that they had consent as long as the plaintiff can prove it was him on the cover. That's why some states even require the release to be in writing rather than a verbal agreement.
Well, I can almost guarantee that the first question that the defendant's counsel will ask in discovery is whether payment was accepted in connection with the photoshoot. The second question will be what the parent thought the payment was for.
A written agreement definitely helps to clarify the matter, but is neither necessary nor sufficient to guarantee a resolution.
One would think there'd be some kind of implied consent.
It's hard to imagine a situation where a record company ends up with naked pictures of someones kid, the parent gets paid, and the parent is genuinely not ok with the pics appearing on an album cover.
I agree it's more interesting if there's no consent form, but I still would hope the court would side with the record company.
Have you looked at the actual report and not the anti-vax site summation of the report?
>. The 21% lower incidence in schools that required mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional.
I'm not sure how 21% lower is considered "not statistically significant", in trying to suppress the spread, ANYTHING > 0% is helpful. Full stop.
Other stand out qualifiers from same report
>This finding might be attributed to higher effectiveness of masks among adults, who are at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection but might also result from differences in mask-wearing behavior among students in schools with optional requirements. Mask use requirements were limited in this sample;
>The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations.
> * First, many COVID-19 cases were self-reported by staff members and parents or guardians, and prevention strategies reported by administrators or nurses might not reflect day-to-day activities or represent all school classrooms, and *did not include an assessment of compliance* (e.g., mask use).
>* Second, the study had limited power to detect lower incidence for potentially effective, but less frequently implemented strategies, such as air filtration and purification systems; only 16 schools reported implementing this ventilation improvement.
> * Third, the response rate was low (11.6%), and some participating schools had missing information about ventilation improvements. However, incidence per 500 students was similar between participating (3.08 cases) and nonparticipating (2.90 cases) schools, suggesting any systematic bias might be low.
>* Finally, the data from this cross-sectional study cannot be used to infer causal
relationships.
Basically was relying on self reporting. If a student contracted and was asymptomatic, not shown here, etc.
> I'm not sure how 21% lower is considered "not statistically significant", in trying to suppress the spread, ANYTHING > 0% is helpful. Full stop.
Statistical significance has a specific meaning in the context of hypothesis testing. It is a measure of likelihood that the observed result occurred due to a real difference between groups (rather than random chance).
It seems that they are adding up the margin of errors for 82/1461 and 87/1461, (schools responded divided by schools surveyed), giving a total margin of error of ~20% for these optional vs. mandatory masked student statistics. This is a problem with using surveys with a low response rate.
In their own words in that section, by the incident rate ratio it is statistically significant, even after having been adjusted for county level 7 day incidence.
You can try and figure it out on page 4 of the cdc report, it does not appear to be a null hypothesis test.
> did not include an assessment of compliance (e.g., mask use).
This is not a rebuttal.
If you establish a policy, and people do not follow the policy, that's on you, not on the people. You don't get to compare your intervention against an ideal world and claim that "it would have worked, if only for those darned humans!"
> Basically was relying on self reporting. If a student contracted and was asymptomatic, not shown here, etc.
A great many of the pro-mask papers in 2020 that claimed to "prove" that masks work started from self-reported data (the infamous "hairdressers" CDC report comes to mind...if a customer was asymptomatic, they were ignored; there was no control, so it's impossible to know what would have happened otherwise; etc.) The standards for "proof" across the pandemic have been dismally low, and tribalism and politics have supplanted science.
The difference here is that we actually have examples from across the globe where kids weren't masked in schools, and no matter how you look at it, it doesn't seem to make much of a difference. If we're going to be skeptical (we should!) let's be skeptical of every claim, and demand proof of effectiveness for our medical interventions before imposing them across all of human society.
It depends what you are looking at. "Do antibiotics work?" is a slightly different question than "Is prescribing antibiotics effective?".
Of course you'd want data on how people actually take them, because to make decisions you'd like to know if the result means "prescribing antibiotics just doesn't work" or "we need to figure out how to make sure people actually take the prescribed antibiotics effectively"
Looking at the authors listed contributions to that site, he specifically appears to have a distinct bias and railing very specifically on something near and dear to him.
I'm not sure how 21% lower is considered "not statistically significant", in trying to suppress the spread, ANYTHING > 0% is helpful. Full stop.
1) Is your government adopting a comprehensives and realistic plan to achieve zero covid? (Such a policy must include 100% international travel shut-down, zero exceptions. If there are exceptions, your government does not have a zero covid policy.)
2) Is ICU or hospital usage approaching capacity in your area?
If the answer to those questions is both "no" (as it is in my jurisdiction which is requiring school kids to mask) then your statement is not true. A 21% lower incident rate is not helpful at all, everyone will still all get exposed to covid eventually.
The net-benefit of the vaccine in kids is likely to be borderline at best. That is because 1) kids are already at very, very low risk from covid 2) the side effects of the vaccine seem to be as bad or worse in the young in healthy 3) actually getting the virus allows the immune system to see a much more complete picture of the virus which may lead to better long term immunity. The kid who actually gets the real thing may end up having a better chance of being protected at age 25 or 45 than the kid who just gets the vaccine. See this article for some discussion of this issue: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58270098
Making a wild claim about how much 3rd party apps "cost them", is not the same as actually seeing revenue once those 3rd party apps are closed.
As most people have been saying, the majority of 3rd party app users are the more advanced technical savvy ones.
There may be SOME percentage of the 3rd party app users who transition, but if the 3rd party traffic is as trivially small as Reddit has claimed, not sure how that will overnight magically transform them into being profitable.
I've never seen an Ad on reddit with use of old.reddit.com , RES, and adblockers. I was a primary user of Apollo, and I certainly won't be using the reddit mobile app. I deleted the app off my phone once the writing is on the wall (rip the bandaid off now and detox vs in 9 days), my phone reported my usage is down 19% this week, so that is a plus.
Absent any business plan on how those actions will actually drive profit, everything they've done has had sole effect of alienating their power user, mods, etc. and I don't see how that helps profit.