You don't know what you're talking about.
If I follow someone on twitter, I want to know what they are up to. If someone has an event or product, or something else they think is relevant to the article, then I want to know.
I really like it! You know one thing that's not great though?? I cannot get back to just snip.ly once I'm logged in! It keeps kicking me to the dashboard when I want to be on the homepage!
Does anyone know what court precedents there are for a site owner O. suing companies C. that present altered versions of O's site to third parties T, without consent from O? Arguably C. is interfering in the relationship of O. to T., wrongfully appropriating O's content for profit, and possibly defaming O by making O. appear (to T.) to be associated with C.
If such actions are not legally ruled out, this service may invite them.
Are you trying to ask if this could be tortuous interference with a business relationship? Or if Snip.ly would be liable for libel/defamation of their users by SiteA whose page was Snip.ly'd?
The former, possibly depending on the ToS of the site and how creative your lawyers can be. The latter, probably not; see 17 U.S. Code § 512, aka Safe Harbor for online posts.
This is hardly the first site to frame another site. It's hardly the first link shortener to do so and add a message or ad in another frame or interstitial either. There's enough that "top 10 URL shorteners to make money" is an actual recurring blog post across the web.
I'm a bit surprised at the amount of positive response. This impresses me as rather obnoxious, probably effective, but obnoxious. Something between the pop-over ad and the ever-present network TV promotional crawl brought to the masses.
I see your point, but I see it as providing context to the links. This is especially useful on Twitter where there is so little room for commentary.
The message is not showing up for no reason. You clicked a link from someone you follow, because you wanted to usually BECAUSE of how that content relates to them.
Sure, if you just change every link you send out to a link with an ad at the bottom that is bad. But I see no problem with adding context and commentary to a link someone is sharing on social media for that exact reason.
I'm not. Marketing has a purpose like anything else. I'm more surprised and concerned by how few people commented on the fact it is relying on sites being vulnerable to clickjacking to function.
I'm not seeing how encouraging end users to engage in behavior that sites specifically turn off for security reasons as a 'good idea' regardless of the marketing value..?
I'd be just as surprised if people posted AirBnb on a site for lawyers in NYC and the majority of lawyers thought it was a 'good idea'.
I fully expect the end users of this product to be oblivious to technical minutiae like clickjacking. I was just expecting a stronger reaction to the technical detail this relies on a tech-heavy start up site like Hacker News.
I'm not sure about this. Mmm. My gut feeling is I wouldn't feel too cool about using it, and I'd guess that if you gave news sites the chance to opt-in to being framed, not many would take Snip.ly up on it.
But I might be missing the full picture, and perhaps I'm just not the target audience.
Good luck to Snip.ly, but for developers who would want to stop this kind of thing from happening on their own sites, OWASP has a clickjacking defense cheat sheet:
I am pretty sure, this service is not going to thrive, because people will never click snip.ly urls once they know what it is, and contains user-ad which hinders user-exprience on the linked article. Is this too hard to figure?
I'm all for being creative in marketing... but this kinda seems like link bait spam. Interested in seeing if/how companies use it, but hoping it doesn't turn into ads for weightloss and sex enhancing pills.
This is not good. Consumers will eventually recognize that snip.ly links offer annoying experiences and they would not click on them over time. Thus, your conversion might actually decrease.
Sniply is going to start stuffing their own ads in that bar eventually. It's a shrewd move by sniply to collect advertising revenue from traffic of other sites.
58 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 119 ms ] threadIs it really free to use?
There is never any advantage for the users who click on the links.
Thinking in absolutes is never a good thing. Maybe -you- could never do anything good with it.
a) You'd just write your take next to the link, instead of hiding it behind. Your example is far-fetched.
b) This is obviously meant for ads. (And the examples on their landing page make that perfectly clear.)
Quote: "You can essentially advertise on any website for free!"
You don't know what you're talking about. If I follow someone on twitter, I want to know what they are up to. If someone has an event or product, or something else they think is relevant to the article, then I want to know.
B) That's cool that some of the uses are advertising, but I'm not going to. I'm not trying to sell some product.
I tend to do that at the time I share the link. Like: "Hey... check out this site. Could be cool... or evil ~ http://snip.ly/"
Isn't this an absolute though?
http://snip.ly/h5P
* This is linked to Twitter ID/Profile right? then why not add some ratio of following/followers to avoid spammy Snips?
* Add a "flag" for reporting unapropiated Snips.
I like the idea, it's devilishly clever.
EDIT: format.
Already thinking of a ton of ways this can be used. Don't love that you have to sign-up for this but I suppose it is necessary.
If such actions are not legally ruled out, this service may invite them.
The former, possibly depending on the ToS of the site and how creative your lawyers can be. The latter, probably not; see 17 U.S. Code § 512, aka Safe Harbor for online posts.
The message is not showing up for no reason. You clicked a link from someone you follow, because you wanted to usually BECAUSE of how that content relates to them.
Sure, if you just change every link you send out to a link with an ad at the bottom that is bad. But I see no problem with adding context and commentary to a link someone is sharing on social media for that exact reason.
Maybe I'm just overly paranoid?
I'm not seeing how encouraging end users to engage in behavior that sites specifically turn off for security reasons as a 'good idea' regardless of the marketing value..?
I fully expect the end users of this product to be oblivious to technical minutiae like clickjacking. I was just expecting a stronger reaction to the technical detail this relies on a tech-heavy start up site like Hacker News.
But I might be missing the full picture, and perhaps I'm just not the target audience.
Good luck to Snip.ly, but for developers who would want to stop this kind of thing from happening on their own sites, OWASP has a clickjacking defense cheat sheet:
https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Clickjacking_Defense_Cheat_S...