smcgregor
commented
10 years ago I kinda want to say:
"Short answer: no.
Long answer: Sites are more concerned with time-on-site than they are with user content. Facebook and Google have access to more valuable data for targeted advertising via the social graph, searches, analytics, and more. If a small percentage of users run Privly, it doesn't matter to them. If a large percentage of users run Privly, then the users are more than controlling the content."
It is a stronger argument, but non-technical people would not understand it. So I am hoping that technical people would be convinced and non-technical people would read it as "sounds impressive, they must know what they are doing."
Does that sounds good? I also reworded your suggested text.
"Sites can block Privly from running, but in most cases that would only hurt the site owners. With Privly available, more people could use the website than ever before. We have people waiting to use sites until Privly is available; they refuse to use it without Privly. It would increase traffic to their site. Furthermore, we don't control social connections, "likes" or other uses of the sites - only status updates. Sites will still have a lot of data to work with."
jenniferdavidson
We should add "Wouldn't just block Privly links?" to the FAQ. I think it's a question that comes up a lot, and it has just come up again.
Here's my start at an answer: " (i.e. Facebook) could potentially block the links. However, we hope they realize that it is not in their best interest. With Privly available, more people would use the website than ever before. We have people waiting to use Facebook until Privly is available; they refuse to use it without Privly. It would increase traffic to their site. Furthermore, we don't control "likes" or other uses of the sites - only status updates. "
FAQ is located here: http://www.privly.org/faq