I generally try not to start meta discussions here, but this HN submission is an example of a trend I'm seeing more of here lately. The title used to give context without editorializing, until an administrator changed it to the cryptic 9to5, which matches the title of the blog post but conveys no information about the article unless you were already following the story.
Yeah I thought I was clicking on it to read about some sort of lifehacker style discussion regarding not working normal hours. I don't understand this policy.
When I submitted the article, I left the title exactly like it is at the source. While I do try to follow the HN submission guidelines, I did wonder if the title would be insufficient to readers. My quick thought process concluded when I felt that HN readers would be sufficiently guided by seeing the instapaper.com domain. That's not to say I assumed reader familiarity with the recent 9to5-Arment issues, just that the Instapaper name would tell readers it had something to do with the app/service rather than a topic Marco Arment was writing on his personal blog (marco.org).
I thought that was a reasonable approach. Not perfect, but ample for what I assume is a thoughtful readership here.
Oh, sorry for making this an example then. I was sure I'd seen it with a more contextual headline earlier, and assumed it was changed by moderators, but I must have misremembered.
Thank you, but I don't think you owe me an apology. You brought up an issue that, relevant or not to this submission, I thought I would address as far as it applied to this thread.
The null hypothesis around here seems to be that HN mods are changing titles because they are title nazis. Instead what might be happening is the algorithim is retitling the posts. Example: if 10 people submit the same link, only the first one creates a post and the others upvote that post. But what if the other 8 still count as title votes: say 8 of them use the same title, then the title in the first story auto-updates to use the common one (which of course is the actual post title). The net result and the whole point of all this would be to strip out anything added which includes both positive context and negative bias/editorializing.
It seems like admins are "fixing" the titles of every blog post on the front page submitted with a bit of context in the title. This is the kind of thing that is not necessarily a terrible idea, but should be discussed openly rather than silently implemented.
Good decision. Personally, I don't think 9to5Mac's claims bordered on libel, and are similar to the initial claim he made about AllClear at http://www.marco.org/2012/09/04/fbi-udid-leak about the UDID leak before it was retracted: "The popular and free AllClear ID app, related to NCFTA, is a likely culprit, especially given the filename."
Either way, to restrict your users from accessing certain websites using your app because you have a personal issue with the proprietors of those websites is taking your anger out on everyone, which would appear unjustified. Otherwise he would probably also want to block other websites that don't like him.
At least he was open about the fact that he overreacted. When someone makes a mistake, what's needed is an apology, and this was appropriate.
Yeah, it struck me as bizarre that he would be so taken aback when someone suggested he was responsible for the leak, but then he made identical baseless suggestions...
I guess I've viewed this situation entirely differently than everyone else - which almost certainly means I'm wrong - but the alternative perspective might be useful.
9to5 made some claims about instapaper being a "scraper", Marco is very sensitive about the grounds that he treads with regards to "Fair Use" - and, in an overabundance of caution (paranoia?) - decided that he didn't want to risk having 9to5 claim that he was violating fair-use by scraping their website, and so he put them in the "Do Not Scrape" list.
What he may not have realized, is that it also appeared to a significant portion of the community, that he was "censoring" 9to5 because they were making claims against him that he didn't appreciate.
The thing about one-man-shop entrepreneurs - they have to walk a very, very fine line between responsible business behavior, and accepting the status quo. The first is an imperative for any long-standing business model, but the second is death when they come up against any major obstacles (as every small venture does).
I think Marco tripped here - hopefully he'll pick himself up, dust himself off, and move on to do great things. I'm looking forward to this new IOS 6 stealth App he's been working on...
Marco should definitely have known better and not involved his paying customers in a squabble between himself and a publisher (who in turn didn't have a problem with the service itself).
I'm glad he admitted fault and has corrected the issue but I'm left with less confidence in the service. He needs to separate his defense of Instapaper/himself from impacting his user base. Regardless of 9to5Mac's actions here, Marco went overboard in censoring their content.
-> Isn't that the whole point of his blog post, admitting that point?
"Regardless of 9to5Mac's actions here, Marco went overboard in censoring their content."
-> And he agrees with you! Which is the point of the article... is there anything he could have written that would not have elicited a negative response from you?
I think we can all agree that Marco overreacted: he says as much in his blog post.
But this doesn't affect my confidence in the Instapaper service. I think it says a lot about Marco that he was willing to admit his fault and reverse his decision—much more than the mistake itself said.
I just don't see how making a very poor decision and then reversing in the face of intense and justified backlash is a net positive. Read it later apps are a dime a dozen and mostly interchangeable. Now we have a "willing to censor over a personal vendetta" checkbox in our comparison shopping. Even if he learns from this, I just am not going to do future business with a person who has crippled his product for users over a petty blogfit.
It's called learning. Most of us get to make our mistakes in private or only in front of a few people. Some folks are public figures and get to show the whole world. On the whole, he has been a good guy and I am willing to move past it because this stuff happens.
It is very much like what I tell people about System Administration: "all your successes will be in the darkness and all your failures in the full light of day".
It's not like, "oops, I dropped an egg". It was censorship due to differing opinions -- not okay under any circumstances whatsoever and he really shouldn't be trusted ever again.
That is a serious load of crap and if that's how you deal with the people in your life, I wish you luck. Because we all go to extremes during our lifetimes and the only way back is for others to understand and allow us to move on.
Marco is not a government, he is one dude who has taken a lot of crap from 9to5. He got mad and acted. He regrets it, but I don't like bullies very much and sometimes those who are bullied will go to extremes.
I would be wary of throwing the word censorship around. This is nothing of the sort. Instapaper deciding not to interact with a particular website (whether foolishly, in this case, or maliciously) is hardly censorship. At worst it is simply sticking your tongue out in the general direction of someone you dislike.
Censorship may carry ominous tones, but censorship is merely the practice of an overseer examining material and suppressing objectionable content. There are varying levels, obviously. I am not trying to associate Instapaper with oppressive governments. But Instapaper did temporarily censor 9to5Mac.
"Crippled" is a bit of an overstatement. Of the billions of websites in existence, he blocked one, for a poorly-thought-out but well-intentioned reason, and reversed it in a candid and transparent way.
I don't see how that would outweigh almost any other comparison shopping consideration (UI, features, etc.).
You've already noted this in your previous comment, and now you've included a word that is typically used in anger.
I'm guilty as the next internet-person of over-reacting. I can see no reason to be upset about someone else doing the same, whether it's Marco, you, or any other reasonable stranger.
It is a personal habit of mine that I treat shit and its variants as very casual terms. Doesn't reflect well on me, but it is a failing of mine. I'm not angry at all, just slightly baffled at how quick everyone is heap praise on someone who did something very stupid and then backtracked after many people pointed out how stupid they were being. Bullshit in this case is just used to point out how frivolous the matter was that caused the censoring.
Going with my instinct, I would definitely assume malice. In this very post, Marco says that he overreacted in part due to his anger at 9to5Mac.
But in the end, I don't care if it was malice or incompetence. I refuse to believe person who made a mistake and apologized > person who never made the mistake in the first place. Learning is fine, but some things you shouldn't have to learn.
Absolutely. If anything I'm more confident that he wouldn't make the same mistake twice. He recognized that he made a mistake and he's tried to rectified it -- he'll only need to cross this bridge once.
As much as I admire all that Marco has accomplished as a single-man developer and business, I think this incident represents one of the negative aspects. There is no filter for poor decisions especially those that should be treated as personal.
Marco should've demonstrated more patience in the matter and let the truth about the UDID mess come to light (it just did) which is now discrediting 9to5 (without any effort on his part).
The way to get even with news sites that have little to no journalistic standards is to hold them accountable to their claims the way John Gruber does with his "Claim Chowder" posts.
Glad for the apology. It's a pretty nasty thing for a service provider to censor content that is critical of the service over hurt feelings, especially when it's a paid service, and the paying customer expects neutrality and professionalism for their money.
The cynic in me wonders how many cancelled subscriptions it took to motivate it.
TDLR; I had legitimate reasons to be upset at 9to5mac for their apparent dislike of me and for unfairly linking me to the fbi issue again. But I overreacted, did something immature in the heat of the moment and I've since reversed my course.
At what point does someone stop being a paying customer? I bought Instapaper about 2 years ago, and haven't paid Marco a cent since. I don't consider him to owe me anything, if anything, I owe him.
Perhaps for some. Others might realize that humans make mistakes. Marco overreacted; there is no question. He made a poor decision. This is not something I am aware of him having done with regards to Instapaper at any other time (I could be wrong; I don't follow Instapaper super-closely, but I would have expected to see it here like this one).
So a first mistake, with a reasonable explanation, a sincere apology and a promise not to repeat (my reading; yours may differ) is "too little, too late"?
Abusing your power as a developer for a personal vendetta is not acceptable, and the fact that it happened demonstrates a lack of taste and self control that suggests one should not trust that person in the future. An apology doesn't fix this, something more is needed to repair trust. Making the opt-out list public might be a start - one wonders how many other sites the developer has used this tactic against.
That's another example of abusing your trusted position. Just because you're having a bun fight somewhere else doesn't give you the right introduce "fuck you" changes to your app that affect end users.
Yeah, because lord knows that a tiny minuscule slice of the world known as Instapaper users couldn't view a 3rd tier Apple rumors site for a few hours is maybe the worst thing to ever happen to the Internet ever.
We're not kids, and we know we're not living in an ideal world. We all make mistakes, we say and do stupid things. Should we be punished for the first lie/mistake we make, or only when we lie/make mistakes most of the time?
In the last two years, I've paid less than 20 or 30 dollars for Instapaper, and every single penny was worth it (I can't emphasize enough). It was the first "mistake" I remember that Marco's made running Instapaper (which was for the longest time, a one-man business). If he makes 5 or 10 more mistakes, I'll move to a competitor. But punishing him for just one tiny overreaction? That's not reasonable IMO (considering that I don't expect to use products made by übermen (super-humans), and would be quite thankful if others didn't expect the same thing from me). I'll accept his apology (and understand his line of reasoning) and move on. He has 50 +'s and on -, that's still 49 +'s!
I think Marco did the right thing in reversing his decision . 9to5 put his entire business in jeopardy and acted without any pretense of professionalism. I disagree with his blocking of 9to5, but he made a mistake in the midst of libelous accusations. Not professional? Perhaps, but completely within the realm of understanding. 9to5 might as well have called him a 'do-do head' for all their article implies.
For reference, I don't use/care about 9to5, or Instapaper.
But, when a media outlet trash talks your service, are you not entitled to bar them from the benefits (pageviews) they receive from your service?
This is one good reason why I don't read anything written by this guy. Very often we see him posting his thoughts and rants on HN about stuff he little knows about on his blog (Marco.org) pretending to be some kind of super-entrepreneur. And now, he has shown his true colors - He abused his power as a developer for a personal gain, and threw out the trust factor.
Agreed, up to a point. When he talks about things he _does_ know a lot about, like programming, I'm an enthusiastic listener.
But when he starts talking about business, mocking MBAs, yet claims raising capital isn't taking on debt (I guess convertible debt isn't a concept to him), my eyes can't stop rolling.
His platform about his profitable company of one being way better than a break-even thousand-employee company is also infuriating.
It's good practice to stick with what you know, especially when you have a large audience of varying expertise.
Because few people bother to read rebuttals. The initial explosive accusation always gets the most eyeballs and then takes forever to go away. This is why slander and libel are such big deals in corporate and political worlds.
I personally think Marco could have chosen a better response, however the talk about censorship are absolutely laughable. If his customers disliked the move they could jump on one of many other alternatives (it's not like Marco has a monopoly on "read it later" software).
You don't have to have a monopoly to engage in censorship.
Marco decided that the right solution to a shouting match was to take hostages. If you think that's okay, I don't know what to tell you.
If Marco had actually been libeled, then the proper recourse is to bring it before a court of law. If he just had his feelings hurt, then the proper recourse is to take a stand in the court of public opinion. In neither case is the appropriate response to throw a temper tantrum.
You would have to be a "controlling body" (per wiki) to engage in censorship. From the article it sounds like Instapaper is a bit player in the world of news and regurgitation thereof. Imagine if you write a news app for the iPhone but never display content from websites you find objectionable. If this means you're engaging in censorship then every bit political blog is guilty of the same.
Marco explained that he considered a libel suit, but thought it was an overreaction and instead settled for what he wrongly believed is a middle ground. If you think I am defending Marco's actions then I don't know what to tell you (besides the fact that you misread my comment). My bemusement was at the rampant and sensationalist cries of censorship.
