ProgArchives censorship

Thanks for the insight Dean. You are so much better at this than I am.

ExittheLemming wrote: thellama73 wrote: Honestly, I would have a lot more respect for the people who run this site if would be honest and say "we prefer the money we get from Google to the uncensored album covers our members want." instead of pretending they have no choice in the matter. There's nothing wrong with liking money. There is something wrong with being a hypocrite. I'm assuming you mean the Admins as 'those who run this site'? (and you'll correct me if that's not the case as soon as you've stemmed that nosebleed suffered from occupying the moral high ground) MAX seldom speaks with and never selects the Admins, Nor does he involve them at any stage when it comes to negotiating with an advertiser like Google. I learned this from being an Admin for about 12 months.So, why do you believe that either the Admins or the members are pretending they have no choice in the matter? At least ask the proper questions, say: Does MAX prefer the money he gets from Google c/f the uncensored album covers some of PA's members want? Would turning off the Google ads result in the site no longer being viable? Only the site owner will have the answers to these. Why don't you put your name forward as an Admin and propose a solution to the problem? There is certainly nothing wrong with liking money, but talk is cheap ain't it?

I realize that the admins have no choice in the matter and I'm sorry if I've offended you. What I was reacting to was the fact that the first page of this thread is littered with apologists claiming "it's not PA's fault" and "there's nothing PA can do about it" which is patently false.

There are other music sites on the web with more traffic and more bandwidth requirements than this one that don't censor album covers. It's a choice, as is any business decision.

Again, I don't have a problem with Max making that choice. It's perfectly legitimate. I do have a problem with abdication of responsibility, though. I guess my frustration was misdirected towards people who don't deserve it, but Max isn't here so you guys get to hear me vent instead. ;)

thellama73 wrote:   There are other music sites on the web with more traffic and more bandwidth requirements than this one that don't censor album covers. It's a choice, as is any business decision.

Dean wrote: Given Max's profession and background I'm sure he's well versed in all aspects of web marketing, including alternatives to Google's AdWords. He is a smart guy, he's done the maths and chosen the solution that allows the site to operate. The site requires money to exist, as the sole owner of the site Max has to pay for the ongoing operating expenses. He isn't a charity or funding it as a hobby, the site needs to pay for itself to remain subscription free.  I don't know the exact revenue figures involved but online estimates put its earning potential in the region of $400/month - that figure is an estimate based upon the site being optimised for maximum revenue based upon the number of monthly visitors. It would be interesting to know how many sites achieve that estimate, statistically that would be "not many". But no matter how well optimised this site is for monthly income $400/month is not what you would call a cash cow. JMA and MMA run so low they don't even show in online estimates, the revenue from PA funds both those sites. Consuming over 4TB bandwidth for 400,000/mnth visits and a considerable amount of database storage places this site in the "professional" end of the webserver market - this is not a site that can live on a low-end budget webserver costing less than $100/month. Also the database itself is not freeware even if the forum software may be free, operating costs for three databases, three websites and three forums are not free.  Given how quickly Max reacts when the income stream is threatened indicates to me that cash-flow is tight and that income just about covers expenses. Going with the adservers that provide the best source of (near)guaranteed income is neither pretending that you don't have choice nor is it hypocrisy, it is expediency and good business practice.  Even the site netted a monthly profit it's going to be a paltry sum so he isn't lining his pockets with huge bundles of cash each month.

A reasonable explanation. But what it tells me is that Google is not in support of a FREE Internet system but is as hypocritical as most big businesses are when it comes to consumer desires/acceptance vs profit margins. Please remember, advertisers are NOT consumers, they are clients. Well, they do consume the public's money, but that's a whole different thread.


 

No offense intended Logan, but you view all relationships as voluntary when the economic realities of the situation often dictate the nature of those relationships. Sure, Max could use all of his own money to fund the site, but why should he do that? He does not owe us anything, not even an explanation for why things are the way they are. We are not his customers. We are getting a free ride here. And the truth of the matter is there is an inherent power differential at play here borne out of economic truths which you usually fail to take into consideration.

The Doctor wrote: No offense intended Logan, but you view all relationships as voluntary when the economic realities of the situation often dictate the nature of those relationships. Sure, Max could use all of his own money to fund the site, but why should he do that? He does not owe us anything, not even an explanation for why things are the way they are. We are not his customers. We are getting a free ride here. And the truth of the matter is there is an inherent power differential at play here borne out of economic truths which you usually fail to take into consideration.

I don't think I am owed anything. I don't expect Max to provide a service for free. I never said that. I said the exact opposite. I said that I don't resent his decision to comply with Google's demands rather than pulling their ads. It's perfectly understandable. My only point was that it is disingenuous to blame Google and not Max for a policy we don't like, since both play a role in making thta policy possible.

I view relationships as voluntary when they are voluntary. There is no power differential because there is no power involved. Google is under no obligation to give Max money for anything. If they choose to do so, they are free to set the terms, which he is then free to accept or deny.

@Dean: the site I had in mind was AllMusic. They don't censor album covers. Neither does Wikipedia. Surely those are big enough entities to have caught Google's notice, yet they sustain themselves without resorting to user fees.

@ExittheLemming: thank you, sir, for your understanding and patience. I admit that I overreacted too. I was cranky. Thank you for not burning my house down. That takes real class. :)

Dean you got "rump" in there twice

OK, let me chip in with a lone voice in agreement with thellama.   Goes to show that there are indeed no free lunches.  We, I mean a general we here and not just PA, have been bigtime hypocrites for believing that you could have a world where intellectual property could move freely and in fact the very idea of expecting consideration for its transfer was unfair and that there would be no price to pay in exchange.  Obviously, Google is just a business corporation - and I don't know that they have ever pretended otherwise - and they have now  begun to extract their pound of flesh.  I would like to see what is it that people choose now - censorship or free access.  I am pretty sure $$ is going to win the day but then don't blame Google for that.  We have known for some time now that they obtain our  personal data and sell it to governments for possibly a princely sum.  How many of us have actually stopped using Google in protest?  If privacy and/or censorship are that important, then walk the talk.  You can't have it all.

Triceratopsoil wrote: Dean you got "rump" in there twice

thellama73 wrote: Dean wrote: why would Google be concerned about images on a website that doesn't use their advertising? They wouldn't. That was my point. That there is a way to run a website without using google advertising and without censoring album covers. I'm not suggesting that way would work for this site. Just that other sites have managed to do it.