View Full Version : New San Francisco Chronicle Article
08-30-2001, 04:54 PM
I just read a new article regarding Gator & TopText which appeared on the front page of the business section of todays San Francisco Chronicle newspaper. Jim from JimWorld (GetHigh forums) gets a mention as does the creator of scumwarelinks.com.
You can read the online version here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/08/30/BU156207.DTL)
08-30-2001, 07:19 PM
sigh... all my colorful analogies and impassioned rants end up on the cutting room form and the usability quote makes it in...
08-30-2001, 07:40 PM
"I really believe the way the Internet is, the consumer owns their Internet experience."
And I really believe this is fairly decent spin-doctoring -- hide the facts and get the general public on your side.
08-30-2001, 07:51 PM
The fact is it not a consumer rights issue
Consumers are not choosing this stuff, they are getting glued in with something else
Consumers are not benefiting from this stuff - eZula and similar are
Consumers are not being empowered by this stuff - unless you consider disney being turned into an ad for porn sites (as reported by MSNBC), and similar, an act that empowers consumers. I doubt most consumers would though.
The way these programs work, in my opinion, is basically by
(a) tricking consumers to get this stuff
(b) in some cases tricking advertisers [check the threads on various boards for advertisers who were not aware they were being promoted this way -- I am a FindWhat advertiser -- and was n't aware or informed (until Friday when I found out by myself) that they formerly had a relationship with Surf+. If I had been told in advance, I would have cancelled my FindWhat a/c the moment I heard.
(c) unfair and strongarm tactics against web sites.
For a non-techie analogy of (c) check my MooperMart/SunilMart analogy (spread over 3 posts) at www.ihelpyouservices.com 's forum
08-30-2001, 10:24 PM
Sunil -- I agree that this is not a consumer rights issue -- I'd agree to that even if every person downloaded the junk and purposefully installed it on their computer knowing full well what it does.
But you gotta admit, it's a bit of marketing smarts on the part of Gator to spin it so we're the ones interfering with somebody's "rights". What better way to get public support?
08-30-2001, 10:29 PM
I posted my work of fiction here as well. (Feel free to pass on the entire story or the URL to it). The URL is:
Consumer rights? Good spin from Gator, but not credible or a fair-reflection of reality in my opinion. I've yet to hear from anybody who wants this type of advertising stuff on their computer, or finds it helpful in anyway.
The original reason I became alerted to this issue was when I started getting complaints about the yellow links that "I was adding" to people's Guest books at Hits4me.com.
I am not an attorney, but I'd imagine consumer rights would probably not be the deciding factor in any legal action. Consumers actively choose Napster, but I don't think this actually helped their case, at least not in terms of the result.
By the way - the reason I made my prev post was not aimed at you, simply to have my comments on the record for anybody reading this thread
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.