Since there is full disclosure, isn't it easy to just ignore the ad if you don't want to read it completely?
Out of curiosity I started using magpie just to assess the kind of ads that it sends. I'm not sure If I'll be sticking with it for too long.
vimoh
· 1 year ago
Anuj,
Even PayPerPost has full disclosure. The objection to Magpie must stem from the fact that a blog (when it is a blog and not a site) is assumed to have a personal voice behind it.
In case of Twitter, it is PEOPLE telling you what THEY are doing. If every five tweets later, someone decided to tell you about a fantastic new restaurant because they are being paid for it and they have never even visited, it would (IMHO) disappoint their followers.
CoryOBrien
· 1 year ago
Couldn't agree more.
Like Anuj, I signed up for Magpie to test it out, and quickly realized that I didn't want to contribute to the crapitization of Twitter. Even with full disclosure, it's basically saying that you're willing to spam your friends for a few bucks a month.
I can understand when Twitter services and programs, such as Twitteriffic, need to monetize Twitter with an occasional ad, because they need to pay for development, hosting, promotion, etc. However, I myself have no need to monetize my tweet stream, and I definitely shouldn't be using ads to 'pay' myself for using Twitter.
Hopefully others feel the same, and Magpie leaves Twitter the ad free space that we all want it to be.
I actually tried it out and made some cash right away. Seems like easy money ...
Harshad Sharma
· 1 year ago
I am keen to read what people have to say, not to read some adverts. So I've written and am using a Russian roulette style magpie zombie kicker script that checks my twitterstream every x minutes and if somebody posted a magpie advert in the last 20 posts from various people... they get the boot.
ugh. spamTweets? hopefully someone will come up with a adTweet blocker, so they can be avoided the same way i avoid sidebar ads, popups, etc on websites. advertisation is the root of all evil. right now you can choose not to follow those who are simply advertising themselves and their wares/services. to have a percentage of my chosen network, though, sending unavoidable adverts would result in an immediate thinning of said network, sadly losing the tweets that are worth receiving as well.
StevenHodson
· 1 year ago
as much as I can appreciate the sentiment against advertising kiwispouse how do expect blogs like The Inquisitr to be able to pay the bills if you run an adblocker - how is that fair?
All Comments
Since there is full disclosure, isn't it easy to just ignore the ad if you don't want to read it completely?
Out of curiosity I started using magpie just to assess the kind of ads that it sends. I'm not sure If I'll be sticking with it for too long.
Even PayPerPost has full disclosure. The objection to Magpie must stem from the fact that a blog (when it is a blog and not a site) is assumed to have a personal voice behind it.
In case of Twitter, it is PEOPLE telling you what THEY are doing. If every five tweets later, someone decided to tell you about a fantastic new restaurant because they are being paid for it and they have never even visited, it would (IMHO) disappoint their followers.
Like Anuj, I signed up for Magpie to test it out, and quickly realized that I didn't want to contribute to the crapitization of Twitter. Even with full disclosure, it's basically saying that you're willing to spam your friends for a few bucks a month.
I can understand when Twitter services and programs, such as Twitteriffic, need to monetize Twitter with an occasional ad, because they need to pay for development, hosting, promotion, etc. However, I myself have no need to monetize my tweet stream, and I definitely shouldn't be using ads to 'pay' myself for using Twitter.
Hopefully others feel the same, and Magpie leaves Twitter the ad free space that we all want it to be.