The Disqus website commenting system is no longer free, (as in beer).
When it comes to managing comments on a website, the free options include WordPress (and other native comment systems), Facebook comments, and [until recently] Livefyre (now owned by Adobe).
You also used to be able to use Disqus for free, but that changed this past week when the company started telling websites that use Disqus that they had to either sign up for the paid service or turn on the Disqus ads.
[...] Disqus offered clear benefits over the default WordPress comment system, including support for threaded comments, upvotes, spam detection (which clearly doesn't always work), comment moderation tools.
At the time Disqus was also completely free for most publishers. Over the years Disqus has rolled out a few different monetization options. Larger publishers can pay for premium features, and all sites can opt-in to Disqus ads, which can appear above or in the middle of the comments sections.
Starting later this week, all publishers using Disqus will have to either enable ads or pay for a subscription.
I honestly don't know which would be worse: advertisements, or websites currently using Disqus switching to Facebook comments.
Also at Liliputing.
Related Stories
After reading the story about Disqus stopping the free version, I remembered this article in which artist behind Pepper and Carrot comic, David Revoy, narrates how he dropped Gravatar, and other external dependencies, like fonts or icons. He even created an avatar generator based around cats. Social networks are still there, but only can track you if you click, the images are locally hosted. You may have heard about this artist, as he was involved in some Blender projects, Krita videos and general promotion of FLOSS for artistic purposes.
(Score: 5, Informative) by zeigerpuppy on Friday January 27 2017, @06:32AM
This is why open-source is the way to go!
Discourse http://discourse.org [discourse.org] is pretty good. ( https://store.greenant.net [greenant.net] is one conpany that provides hosted instances). It's quite memory hungry though.
Flarum is a nice up and coming system. http://flarum.org [flarum.org]
I've had a generally good experience with integrating Discourse into websites.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Friday January 27 2017, @10:35AM
perhaps we need the "bittorrent protocol" for comments?
Signed, distributed, and free of *any* corporation hosted on *citzen* machines?
If symmetric internet ever becomes a "thing" , this would be possible.
Anyone else think this would be a good idea?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday January 27 2017, @02:06PM
Yes, that makes sense. I would love to see the symmetric internet happen on the hardware layer, too. It is critical to our collective future freedom and happiness and prosperity to shuffle off 19th-century style systems of centralized control.
As a vague, unformed, and likely easily shoot-downable thought, I have long felt Slashdot's and now Soylent's commenting system is the best I've ever experienced. I wonder if it could be packaged as FLOSS for the purpose of replacing Disqus and its like. It would be a positive thing to improve the quality of public discourse, which is critical to the process of consensus formation without which no democracy can function.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday January 27 2017, @08:58PM
I'd certainly like to see that, but my host would have to implement it. I could use it for my blog, but I don't trust any of the packages they have (and there are tons of tools).
No one born who could always afford anything he wanted can have a clue what "affordability" means.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday January 27 2017, @07:10PM
> If symmetric internet ever becomes a "thing" , this would be possible.
So cute when they're in the naive phase...
Over the next two years, Chairman Pai will dutifully watch as your ISP gives you a 1GB/month cap for anything that is not provided by their own servers (or websites paying for the privilege). VPNs will cost you extra, with legal MITM to prevent you from downloading terrorist of copyrighted stuff. For the Children. Or the Billionaires' Children.
You will pay $200 bucks for internet access, and will be invited to check the non-existent competitor if you're not happy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @02:44PM
Discourse is great.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @06:33AM
Blah blah cloud is not your server, now give me free karma.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Friday January 27 2017, @06:34AM
Depends on the perspective. De-facto, I think Facebook-accounts are more prevalent, and probably more people would join the discussions. For average-joe it might even be nice to show to more people what he is interested in, to meet and identify more friends in discussions, etc. And maybe it even lifts the barrier for trolls. Once having a separate account for troll^wdiscussing, it comes easy, but being forced to use their public Facebook-identity might discourage some people.
Although, having to sign up to participate can be an advantage to exclude those not really interested, avoiding some of the clutter. And, some of those not having a Facebook account are imo more likely to have made an informed decision, therefore being people with ideals. (No, that does *not* mean that Facebook users don't have ideals. Many of them made informed decisions on other topics. But others just follow herd-instinct, and those are not very likely to provide new impulses to discussions.)
Personally, I do have a Facebook account. I only use it in a separate Browser-installation on PC in a private window (to complicate browser-fingerprinting), never from any smartphone, tablet or the like, in order to find long-lost friends and to keep in touch with some people who use it as primary contact point. I'm unlikely to participate in any discussion requiring a Facebook login.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 1) by shanen on Friday January 27 2017, @09:15AM
Actually, I think it is the bad (as in immoral) financial model of Facebook that makes it such an enormous waste of time and the terrible financial model of Disqus that has forced it to this change while also preventing Disqus from improving. I think the kernel idea of Disqus was sort of good, but the implementation has actually gone downhill over time.
In particular, I was disappointed when they seemed to create some internal discussion forums for possible improvement to Disqus, only to start vigorously censoring those discussions. Sometimes the censorship was so odd it made me wonder if they were trying to sabotage their own hopes.
I always want to end on a constructive note, but for now I'll just say that I think there are people who do value good discussions and I think there are no financial models that align their interests with any of the discussion systems that I've seen. I've been looking for good suggestions to support, and not been able to find them, and even gone farther in offering my own suggestions with a bit of my own money behind them. Given that we [the computing communities I was involved in] had deeper and more thoughtful discussions many years ago, it's almost as though the Internet is evolving to prevent thoughtful dialog, eh?
#1 Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice{5} ≠ (Beer^4 | Speech) and your negative mods prove you are a narrow prick.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Friday January 27 2017, @09:50AM
It's not only the Internet. Humans are far less enlightened and complex as they give themselves credit for. Smartphones are so shiny, the coloured clicky games stimulate the nucleus accumbens [wikipedia.org] so easily, why bother with real thinking? Why read, exchange arguments? You can just define your own alternate facts [theguardian.com].
Those who really want to think can join Diaspora, usenet, and other forums. But it tends to get lonely there :-(
And now, ge'roff me lawn
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 1) by shanen on Friday January 27 2017, @11:18AM
Read The Shallows yet? strongly recommend it for support of that thesis. That's why I want the deep-thinking cap to make it easier for me to shut out the distractions.
#1 Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice{5} ≠ (Beer^4 | Speech) and your negative mods prove you are a narrow prick.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Friday January 27 2017, @11:32AM
I didn't, just checked the summary on Amazon. Looks interesting, maybe I give it a go. Thanks.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Friday January 27 2017, @02:59PM
> can join Diaspora
Is Diaspora still a thing? I remember them saying they were shutting down years ago. Would be nice to know if I was misinformed. Additionally If it is any good then might even be worth looking into setting up my own.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Friday January 27 2017, @04:20PM
I have an account and still see updates on my timeline... (Don't want to link here, because it is clear-name and I don't want to get it linked to my pseudonym here)
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Friday January 27 2017, @04:59PM
I just checked the wiki page [wikipedia.org]. The software is still further developed [github.com]
Actually I'm considering setting up my own pod. My main current account is hosted somewhere else, and works fine, and on my first attempt I had some problems setting up my own server (I sincerely hate ruby. I had to deal with so much version chaos of test scripts, different set of gems, different incompatible ruby versions, rvm killing basic operating system features in extremely creative ways, etc. that I really, sincerely have an aversion against this language.), but I noticed that there are several docker-files and -images available nowadays, so it shouldn't be hard anymore to set something up.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheRaven on Friday January 27 2017, @10:21AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @06:31PM
maybe switch to disconnect instead of ghostery. disconnect is open source. ghostery is made by advertisers and is closed.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Pino P on Friday January 27 2017, @06:41PM
In fact, equivalent functionality to the Disconnect extension is built into every Mozilla Firefox browser. Go to about:config and turn on privacy.trackingprotection.enabled.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday January 27 2017, @09:29PM
Ditto :)
My knowledge of Disqus is exactly limited to that Ghostery block image that says 'Disqus is blocked'.
There is only one place on the Internet I comment on anything, and that is right here. Well, technical mailing lists are excluded since my real name is there along with an actual phone number to reach me. That's business. Personal wise, Soylent is it.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @12:21PM
Basically the problem with that is that excludes people who are facebook-incompatible and as that policy becomes more and more widespread it gives mark z quite a bit of extra power over what he would have if his website was just another website among others.
ie. it's like old microsoft all over again except it's "free". Don't want to use word, much less pay for it, but somehow people keep sending word documents anyway.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday January 27 2017, @03:49PM
Like you, I won't part participate in any discussion requiring a Facebook login. Nor will I participate in any discussion, outside of purely technical ones, requiring my real name.
IMO, comment systems which require a real name are actually going to make things worse: quality comments will be rare, and bad comments from trolls and idiots will be common. I see it today with the quality of Facebook-tied comments.
IMO, people like me who are well-paid professionals will tend to not use such systems, because it can only hurt us in applying for jobs. A simple Google search will immediately show a prospective employer your personal opinions about irrelevant things, your political views, etc. Now notice that there's no shortage of people happy to spout this stuff under their real name out there, and in quite vitriolic ways. But what kind of jobs do you think these people have? Generally not very good ones. Some guy who works a minimum wage job doesn't have to worry much about his online comments becoming an issue with his career. Highly-paid professionals do.
So while I'll be happy to attach my real name to a technical discussion in my field of expertise (in a forum dedicated solely to that), on a discussion forum that gets into more controversial stuff, it's either pseudonym or anonymous or I don't bother.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Friday January 27 2017, @04:51PM
Now notice that there's no shortage of people happy to spout this stuff under their real name out there, and in quite vitriolic ways. But what kind of jobs do you think these people have?
POTUS, e.g. ;-)
I see your point, but that counter-example just sprang to mind...
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday January 27 2017, @05:00PM
That's a very good point. I'll counter that posting vitriol under your real name can work out well in some cases, it just depends a lot on your career. If you're a professional seeking to be hired by a decently-run company, it's not likely to help you, only hurt. If you're some type of celebrity of public figure, and your vitriol and postings actually appeal to the people who will help you in your quest for power or money, then it can be a huge help. That's what we just saw with this election. However, there are exceptions: if you're a professional and you want to work at a company where you're sure the company/hiring managers have the same political views as you and would actually appreciate your postings, then it might help. But to me, this seems like a big gamble. It's very easy to turn people off with political talk, esp. in today's highly polarized climate.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday January 27 2017, @08:20PM
I intentionally refuse to censor or conceal my online identities for the sake of employers. The kinds of employers that would even look at a candidate's Facebook, let alone use it as a basis for hiring decisions, are the kind of petty tyrants that I wouldn't want to work for anyway. If they refuse to hire me because of something I posted online, I'd consider that to be dodging a bullet.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday January 27 2017, @06:40AM
This doesn't surprise me, of course, and it's only going to get worse for anything providing "free content" or a "free service" online.
But it's already gotten outlandish, in my opinion. Mainstream media sites used without adblock today frequently look like what you'd encounter on the "underbelly" of the internet a decade ago -- multiple layers of ads popping up in your way, some of them clearly links to worse sites where you can't even find the content anymore... Just a barrage of ads intended to install spyware or force you to click on them and head somewhere even worse.
I remember people years ago complaining about what the web was like without adblock... And now it's so much worse. How much more ads can we take? I can't figure out how the web is even usable now for people without ad blocking... And now an increasing number of sites are putting up walls preventing adblock (which is their right, but it's just gotten so bad, what choice do people have)?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday January 27 2017, @07:00AM
number of sites are putting up walls preventing adblock (which is their right,
No, it is not their right. If they are on the internet, they have an obligation to share information. If they do anything to impede that, well, the internet interprets censorship or rent-seeking as damage, and routes around it. They have no right, none.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gidds on Friday January 27 2017, @02:06PM
I disagree with your specific point. They have the absolute right to put whatever they want on their web sites; and we have the absolute right not to visit those sites. That's the way it works.
They have no obligation; but if they don't share information, then that will have consequences on the number and type of visitors.
However, I agree with the wider issue, which is that no-one can force ads on anyone else. The best they can do is to make sites that people want to visit despite the ads.
And of course some of us have a much lower tolerance for ads than others. Mine leads me to use an ad-blocker, a script blocker, and a massive hosts file; for me ads are a waste of attention, of bandwidth, of CPU load, of screen space, and a malware risk. (They're also a perverse incentive; I want to encourage goods and services that do what I want, well, not ones that advertise widely.)
I hate ads and trackers, and avoid that sort of site. I'd be very happy to see lots of moral and commercial pressure to avoid them. But I'm not sure I'd want to see legal pressure in general: things like fraud, misrepresentation, and hacking are already covered, and I think we need some more control over personal data; but much as I hate advertising in general, I suspect an outright ban would have too many unintended side-effects.
[sig redacted]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday January 27 2017, @03:55PM
they have an obligation to share information.
Where is that written? Sorry, no. They're paying for the hosting and creation and maintenance of their site, it's theirs and they can do what they want with it. They have no obligation to anyone for anything except to pay their bills. If you don't like it, you're free to not visit that site. That's exactly what I do for Forbes, which won't let me read without disabling my ad-blocker. (I think LA Times is doing this now too, so now I ignore them too.)
The internet does not seek rent-seeking as damage; that's a terrible misuse of an old line. If someone is pay-walling or ad-block-walling (not sure if that's the right term) their article and no one else cares enough to pirate it and post it somewhere, then you're just not going to see it without paying or disabling your ad-blocker (or using some technical means to get around the block). So far, it really isn't a problem. With Forbes blocking me, I'm saving time by not polluting my mind and wasting my time with their crap "articles". But they absolutely do have the right to block me, and I have the right to type Ctrl-W in response or just ignore links to forbes.com.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday January 27 2017, @06:46PM
you're just not going to see it without paying or disabling your ad-blocker (or using some technical means to get around the block). So far, it really isn't a problem.
Until someone gives you heck here on SN for making uninformed comments due to not having read the featured article.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday January 27 2017, @07:02PM
They really do that here?
I'd just tell them to go screw themselves. AFAIC, if an article is pay-walled or ad-block-blocked, then I'm under zero obligation to read it before making all the commentary I want. If they want me to read the article, they better find an accessible source for it.
Maybe this site should simply have a policy that no pay-walled or ad-block-blocked links are allowed.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday January 30 2017, @03:53AM
No, it is not their right. If they are on the internet, they have an obligation to share information.
Others have already replied to this, but... Huh? Are you being sarcastic? Because we really can't tell anymore.
If they do anything to impede that, well, the internet interprets censorship or rent-seeking as damage, and routes around it. They have no right, none.
If you're actually serious here, note that there's lots of stuff on the internet that's not public. Lots of password-protected sites and other services not on the web (but still on the internet). Just because most people and businesses use the internet as some sort of public messaging board doesn't mean it can't have other uses. And if a site wants to place terms on who gets to download information from it, that is most certainly their right... particularly if they are paying for the servers, etc. Will people work to circumvent adblock or whatever? Sure. But I'd argue the more ethical choice in such a situation is to stop using that site. There are about a dozen major news sites I no longer click on because I know they've either blocked adblock users or state that they don't want people if they use adblock. So, I respect their choice -- it's their site. I may think it's a poor business choice, but they're the ones making it.
(Score: 2, Informative) by aristarchus on Monday January 30 2017, @04:44AM
As Einstein allegedly said, nothing will change because our thinking has not changed. We constantly think of the internet as a telephone system of private messaging and communication, or a broadcast medium like radio and then television was. Either you pay for a phone line, or the broadcaster has to find some way to pay for the infrastructure with advertisement or whatnot. (This is what later becomes rent-seeking behavior, with ad-free cable TV and pay-per-view.) But the internet is neither of those things. The infrastructure costs have fallen to marginal levels, at least on the individual level. Private communications may transit over the same backbone, but they are not what the system was designed for. I speak for the internet as the Creators dreamed of it: a free and open access to all of human knowledge by all humans. With that model, yes, anyone who is on the internet has an obligation to share information, because that is its purpose, and information wants to be free.
Yes, Republicans and other greedy bastards have taken it over, since the .com days. I remember when the internet was mostly .edu! So the model is there, and is in fact the original model. The fake idea of intellectual property, foisted on the tech community by the likes of Microsoft, a company that had to steal its first TCP/IP stack, is foreign to the internet, a parasite that soon will be remedied by the community that opposes commerce that restricts the free exchange of information. All these sites that complain about ad-blockers? They are violating the social trust (and government funding) on which the network is based, they are freeloaders.
No doubt some will say that this is just my opinion, but dudes and dudettes, I have been watching information systems since the time I had to write a message on papyrus, encoded if necessary, entrust it to a courier, who then had to walk or take a sailing ship to deliver the message to its intended recipient. To get information, people had to actually physically travel to places called "schools" and "bibliotech". I think I know a revolution when I see one, and advertisement is a threat to that human possibility. Advertising is what gives us alternative facts. Advertisers lie, cheat, and extort, and the sooner they are eliminated, the better off humanity will be. Just think, did you see any sponsor stickers on the side of the Star Trek Enterprise?
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by aristarchus on Thursday February 02 2017, @06:32AM
META!!!! WARNING!!!! META!!!
OK, how about we reconfigure "Redundant" to +1, since so many of our brain and otherwise damaged conservative or libertariantard members need things repeated multiple times before they can begin to understand?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @07:09AM
Maybe now I'll be able to see comments on more sites. If you browse without javascript then Disqus comments won't load. Disqus fucking sucks...
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @09:10AM
Disqus fuqing suqs...
FTFY.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @12:05PM
diqusting
(Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Friday January 27 2017, @07:11AM
Instead of not seeing Disqus comments, I'll not see Facebook comments.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @07:19AM
Instead of not seeing Disqus comments, I'll not see Facebook comments.
I don't see either, and . . . . [Wait For It!!!], nothing of value was lost.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday January 27 2017, @12:12PM
Wait! You didn't see that your best friend had a poo this morning? And the world didn't splode?
Huh!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 27 2017, @03:02PM
Yep. I will never create a FaceTwit account.
Q. How much did Santa's sled cost?
A. Nothing. It was on the house.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Friday January 27 2017, @07:43AM
Just a crazy idea: Would it be possible to adapt Rehash so that it can provide comment sections on web pages?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 27 2017, @11:28AM
Probably, yeah. If I put a mess more work into the API, redid the bits of logic that tied it to a story, changed up the db to be able to associate comments with a url instead of a discussion id, and wrote the javascript you'd need to include in your templates. Call it maybe two or three months dev time, including debugging. The real issue would be "holy fuck, look at all the new traffic we have to handle".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Friday January 27 2017, @07:47AM
Wouldn't it be nice if we had a decoupled discussion forum? With threading, apps to support filtering, scorefiles, offline usable, distributed infrastructure, etc? Oh, wait, we have that. It's called usenet [comp.misc]. (According to https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/url/news_002fnntp_002fsnews.html, [gnu.org] news:comp.misc [comp.misc] is a valid URI; my Firefox in Fedora did not know what to do with it, although different newsreaders are installed.)
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by KritonK on Friday January 27 2017, @09:45AM
That's because the mozilla way of reading usenet news is through thunderbird, not firefox. In the Account Settings dialog, press the Account Actions button, select Add Other Account and create a new newsgroup account.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Friday January 27 2017, @09:53AM
I know. Fedora can be configured to assign default-applications to URIs, Firefox reflects these settings. But in Fedora, no app is assigned to the news: uri.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by KritonK on Sunday January 29 2017, @02:43PM
I use KDE plasma under Fedora 25 and, when I click on a news link, I get a dialog offering me two options on how to open it: knode, which is KDE's news reader (which is probably not installed if you are not a KDE user) and google groups, which will open the corresponding google groups page in your browser. There is also a button that allows you to pick another program. Thunderbird may missing from the list, but at least there is a way to add it manually. I suppose that we could report this to Red Hat, so that they could fix it, but...
(Score: 2) by Marand on Friday January 27 2017, @02:33PM
In my case (Firefox on Debian stable) it fired up KDE's reader, as expected. Can't remember if it's something I set or if Debian handled it automagically though, this install started around 2000 so it's possible I set it up manually sometime long ago...
(Score: 2) by Celestial on Friday January 27 2017, @06:15PM
It's been quite a while (probably fifteen or so years, if not more), since I last used Usenet, so I could be quite wrong. That being said, most ISPs have long dumped Usenet access and finding a good Usenet provider (especially for free) ain't exactly easy to stumble upon unless you know exactly what you're looking for. IIRC, the reason I stopped using Usenet is because it became mostly a playground for trading binaries and spammers. It was a never ending game of whack-a-mole. I don't know if that's improved since then, although I suspect it has if only for it's decreased popularity since then.
Also, there's no emojis on Usenet and you can't post cute cat pictures so it's automatically worthless. /s
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 28 2017, @12:44AM
ISPs don't always offer usenet anymore.
Like my ISP :(
I've participated in a bit of usenet discussions in a past a long time ago, but there was a lot of spam and pretty much no moderation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @08:51AM
When it comes to managing comments on a website, the free options include WordPress (and other native comment systems), Facebook comments, and [until recently] Livefyre (now owned by Adobe).
Or you know, you could do what people did since the dawn of the internet and write it on your own. It's neither rocket science nor complicated.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Friday January 27 2017, @09:05AM
Complete with your own vulnerabilities? Most people are not qualified to write it on their own. Not because they could not get it working, but because they would not know how to make it secure.
What most people should rather do is to use a local installation of existing, well-maintained software to provide comments.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @09:47AM
If they never attempt to in the first place they will never learn how to write secure code and become reliant on others to do their work for them and implicitly trust those to do their job properly. A homebrew system may have vulnerability but it will not fall victim to the kind of automated rooting that happens when a vuln shows up in a popular system/framework.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @12:32PM
Pffttbbtt. Cyka blyat!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @03:54PM
Free beer service finally reaches tipping point of established base large enough that they feel they can monetize the serve and, you know, start paying back their investors.
Management, OTOH, now drops one wing and starts flying in circles desperately seeking alternatives that won't cut into the bottom line. (Or says, "fuck it! Let them see some more ads, don't hurt us none.")
Anyone not seeing this coming should switch tracks and work in the exciting fast food sector.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @05:10PM
I'd very much like to see something like https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/just-comment/?src=search [mozilla.org] take off.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by RedIsNotGreen on Friday January 27 2017, @05:22PM
Outsourcing your comments is a dumb idea. If you don't want to maintain it then just link to reddit. If you want comments, do it yourself. If you try to have your cake and eat it too you end up with neither.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday January 27 2017, @06:51PM
If you don't want to maintain [your own comments section] then just link to reddit.
I don't see how site operator submitting each article's URL to reddit is practical. I thought reddiquette required submitters to submit nine times as many articles from other sites as they do their own articles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @06:46PM
if you use disqus for your site you're a pitiful fuck.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by halcyon1234 on Friday January 27 2017, @07:07PM
And fuck anyone who decided to use it. You sold out your users to a privacy-invading third party corporation. And now you're going to suffer by losing all the comment content associated to your site. OR your users are going to suffer more by getting hit by privacy-invading, security-risk advertising content.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... Fuck Disqus with a leaky car battery [sevenseventeen.ca]
Original Submission [thedailywtf.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @08:13PM
you should host your own "comment server". this way your perceived "spam" comment wont take precious HDD space.
just register your very anonymous "comment server" with whatever website you want to comment on.
this way, fly number one: disk space is your problem and fly number two: control over your comments is your problem also.
anyone that doesnt like you can just tell their browser to not link to your "comment server" ... etc.
ofc this wont .. fly