
Privacytools.io: Hypothetical possibility of using affiliate/referral links - rvnx
https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/966
======
iamben
Perhaps put two links?

"We recommend XYZ because of ABC. They run a program that compensates us for
recommending them. You can click here and we won't receive any money for the
recommendation, or click here and we'll receive a small amount of money that
will be put towards our own development. As soon as, and if we ever decide to
not recommend XYZ, we will remove both links."

Or whatever.

~~~
drsim
I saw this first at moneysavingexpert.com and appreciated how transparent they
were. The average consumer may not know about affiliate links.

[https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/site/moneysavingexpert-
fin...](https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/site/moneysavingexpert-
finance/#revenue)

------
okaycan
Inaccurate title? Link mentions a discussion on a "hypothetical" situation.
Nowhere do I see that they _will_ add links or listings.

~~~
nkozyra
Yep, that should be updated.

While I understand the desire to make some money, as soon as you mix an
altruistic effort with a moneymaking one, the former is muddled.

Sure, maybe it would 100% have no impact on decisions. The real problem is ...
how would a user know? I struggle with this when listening to NPR and hearing
the programming is "possible due to [huge corporate sponsor]" I want to
believe NPR would not be influenced to not run or minimize a story about a
sponsor, but the uncertainty makes their coverage less trustworthy to me.

That applies here. Sure, you're telling me Brave is the best choice and maybe
that's true, but I also know you have a financial benefit from convincing me
of that.

Private donations from users via crowdfunding is the only system that
mitigates this. Maybe they just need to better promote those.

~~~
tomglynch
The solution is the programs they link to, such as Brave Browser should just
donate. Though it is up to privacytool.io to set up the system to allow this.

~~~
nkozyra
This doesn't solve that problem at all. Now you have something that looks like
pay for play.

------
user17843
I once created a project based on affiliate links and I researched the
implications of this a lot.

I came to the conclusion for a corporate project it's a very elegant way to
make money, as theoretically it's a win-win for everone involved.

But there is one big problem, especially for smaller projects where the people
who write the content also manage the website: Subconciously you start
identifying with the products you recommend.

It's easy to lie to yourself. Like one guy on the github thread, suggesting

> "Another benefit of more income from affiliate: We could fund small privacy
> open source software / service projects in form of donations, too.

If the project would be able to even fund other projects with running on
affiliate money, then it would also be possible to live off donation or a shop
and simply focus on your own project.

There is only one way of having a project that sides with the users: Actually
getting the money directly from the users.

With affiliate links the products you recommend become your customers, so you
start to become accountable towards them, and the users become your product.

This happens slowly over time and mostly subconsciously. At first everything
seems to be ok, but at one point all the relevant questions resolve around how
to please the affiliate customers.

------
shekhardesigner
If Brave or any similar service is worth of being listed on privacytools.io -
Why would they spend and provide you with the affiliated money? After all - if
this team finds the software in matter, a valuable to be added, you will add
it anyway.

Taking affiliate will result in loosing the trust I have, honestly.

~~~
HenryBemis
Do you think/fear that they will bribed to suggest something shady just so
they can collect on the affiliate link? I have been trusting them as a source
for a couple of years now, and I believe that for (the majority of) us here in
HN, the moment we see they start feeding us garbage, a) we will call them out
in this forum, b) we will leave them so fast their heads will spin.

~~~
shekhardesigner
I am rather thinking that, let us say "App XYZ" is super secure and
PrivacyTools lists them without affiliation.

Later after sometime if App XYZ offers affiliate, why would they pay
PrivacyTools since the app is listed free anyway?

If anything - PrivacyTools should expect donations, not affiliated or
marketing revenue.

And I honestly think - they can also go in the direction of having a minimal
monthly subscription fee.

------
zpeti
I think there is a big difference between "hidden" affiliate links, or even
hiding behind fake personas (aka [https://uk.pcmag.com/news-
analysis/120580/how-a-vpn-review-s...](https://uk.pcmag.com/news-
analysis/120580/how-a-vpn-review-site-dominated-google-search-with-a-scam)),
and being honest about what is going on.

Most people will be aware that affiliate links will affect content a tiny bit,
but if the authors are fairly trustworthy and honest people, I think that
works.

------
mrhappyunhappy
And if they did, what’s wrong with it? People are not allowed to make money?
As long as they don’t prioritize based on affiliation I don’t see a problem.

~~~
michaelt

      what’s wrong with it?
    

A belief that, when the subject of the report is handing over cash and free
samples to the reporter, "unbiased" reporting won't actually be unbiased.

You see this in _loads_ of situations, even those with ethics codes and
suchlike. From Youtubers and Instagram influencers all the way to professional
games journalists and national newspapers' lifestyle magazines.

~~~
mrhappyunhappy
You speak as if everyone abides by some ethics standards where people cannot
make honest assessments and recommendations without being influenced by money.
I just don’t get it, people here seem to have a hard on for wirecutter but
mention affiliate marketing and we are all scumbags for even considering it.
I’m generalizing too, but so are you.

~~~
michaelt

      people here seem to have a hard on for wirecutter
    

Not me, I've seen [https://www.xdesk.com/wirecutter-standing-desk-review-pay-
to...](https://www.xdesk.com/wirecutter-standing-desk-review-pay-to-play-
model) † - precisely the sort of observations that make people suspicious of
shill reviewers.

† which admittedly wirecutter disagree with [https://thewirecutter.com/our-
response-to-nextdesk/](https://thewirecutter.com/our-response-to-nextdesk/)

