Slashdot Mirror


Ello Formally Promises To Remain Ad-Free, Raises $5.5M

Social media site Ello is presented as the anti-Facebook, promising an ad-free social network, and that they won't sell private data. Today, they've also announced that Ello has become a Public Benefit Corporation, and that the site's anti-advertising promise has been enshrined in a corporate charter. The BBC reports on the restrictions that Ello has therefore entered into, which mean the site cannot, for monetary gain,
  1. Sell user-specific data to a third party
  2. Enter into an agreement to display paid advertising on behalf of a third party; and
  3. In the event of an acquisition or asset transfer, the Company shall require any acquiring entity to adopt these requirements with respect to the operation of Ello or its assets.

While that might turn off some potential revenue flows (the company says it will make money by selling optional features), as the linked article points out, it hasn't turned off investors; Ello has now raised $5.5 million from investors.

29 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Wonder if their time hasn't already passed... by IANAAC · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I don't know that many people that have gotten an invite to join, but the ones that have don't really have anything positive to say about it.

    I would imagine it's down to too few people being on it still. There was such initial hype for it, then nothing. How long do you suppose people will wait before just not bothering with it?

    1. Re:Wonder if their time hasn't already passed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My experience with the Ello crowd is the same as with the Google+ crowd. About 8 of my friends left Facebook, cursing the day it was made and whipping it the cyber finger saying they'd never deal with Zuck and his ilk again and every one of them was back within three weeks. Fewer left for Ello but every one of them is back in Facebookland without so much as a peep about their experience abroad. Meh. It is what it is.

    2. Re:Wonder if their time hasn't already passed... by dmomo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The site just wasn't ready for mass adoption. There's a great idea behind it, but as of last week, it was just so damn unusable. I'm tempted to think that their marketing blitz was premature. But perhaps the goal wasn't to show off the site so much as to get just enough attention to turn the heads of investors. If so, maybe it worked. They've gained some cash flow while also validating the idea that there IS a desire for what they are building.

      Now, they can use some of this funding to actually make the UI usable and add in those missing features. Maybe when their next media campaign comes around, there will be a site worth applauding. We can only hope.

      Good for them. I'll keep my account active and hope it turns into a site

    3. Re:Wonder if their time hasn't already passed... by hodet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most people don't give a crap about Facebook's privacy policies. I personally don't touch facebook with a 10 ft pole but that is my choice and understand why others keep going there. That makes me about the only person in my family and social circle that does not use it. Stay in touch with the people you care about and you can always connect with them, it just takes effort. I don't know anybody who would move from facebook because people are there already. It's a noble thing to try and create something better. However, if you have ever seen the Personal Power Grid, any company would be in the Ceaselessly Striving box, they are taking action and have no control over the outcome. Most users just do not give a crap and are in the Acceptance (Let It Go) corner.

    4. Re:Wonder if their time hasn't already passed... by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would imagine it's down to too few people being on it still.

      Not just too few people... it's also feature incomplete.
       

      How long do you suppose people will wait before just not bothering with it?

      It's already started... Ello has failed to learn the lesson of G+ and odds are, it will suffer the same fate. Gatekeeping at launch is just shooting yourself in the foot - people want to try your system, and if you lock them out... they aren't coming back. First impressions matter, and a barred door with a sign saying "only kewl kids allowed" makes a powerful first impression. In addition, G+, and Diaspora, and now Ello can't seem to grasp that to most people, personal privacy is just one of the many factors that they weigh. On top of the network effect there's also the features the system supports (chat, pages/groups, games, etc...), and all of the would be pretenders have fallen short on that front. (Or added them too late to make a difference.)

      On top of that... Ello is going to have to come up with some pretty impressive optional features in order to induce people to pay for them - things the users can't get elsewhere while *also* providing a complete set of the features users have come to expect. That's a very tall order.

      There's no doubt that like G+, Ello might be able to eke out a meager living on the fringes... but as a Facebook killer, or even serious competitor, it's already dead.

    5. Re:Wonder if their time hasn't already passed... by rsborg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's already started... Ello has failed to learn the lesson of G+ and odds are, it will suffer the same fate. Gatekeeping at launch is just shooting yourself in the foot - people want to try your system, and if you lock them out... they aren't coming back

      There are scalability issues that need to be addressed. It's simply impossible without an incredible risk and cost, to have the same scale as an established competitor, so gate-keeping is one option.

      but as a Facebook killer, or even serious competitor, it's already dead.

      Why does everything have to kill what's already there? Did Ello ever claim to be such? Talk about a strawman.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    6. Re:Wonder if their time hasn't already passed... by rsborg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In the case of a general social networking tool, there kinda can be only one.

      You're again... making assumptions. What precludes Ello from occupying a target niche of social networking? Have you not heard of LinkedIn? Did Stackoverflow *have* to beat out Yahoo Answers in order to gain traction and meet it's need?

      It's a massive simplification to assume that a dominant player in a space where network effects reinforce their position is unassailable. How do you think Google and Apple were able to make any inroads against the Windows ecosystem? By addressing an area where Microsoft simply could not compete (mobile). Facebook likewise simply *cannot* compete where strong privacy is a key requirement. Their entire business model goes against it (similarly Google to an extent). Diaspora was a failure simply because people don't want to self-host, though technically their proposal had merit. Also 10 years ago, Friendster and MySpace were dominant - where are they now? Not to say that Facebook is doomed, more to say the market can and will evolve.

      What is more interesting than competing with Facebook, IMHO, is to assail the entire concept that personal (sometimes PII) user data is a business asset that should always be sold, licensed or exploited. Legally preventing themselves from profiting from that data poses a very interesting business limitation and a possible template for others to copy - sometimes you gain more by leaving something on the table.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  2. G+? by RJFerret · · Score: 2

    So it's trying to be Google+ without the popularity? Oh, but pay for aspects of it directly?

    1. Re:G+? by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 4, Funny

      Google+ is popular?

    2. Re:G+? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

      On Slashdot, an alternative joke might've made the OP's intent clearer:

      "So it's trying to be Diaspora without the popularity?"

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:G+? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      You can use Facebook to log in to a lot of services as well, but that's not really "using" Facebook because you're not doing anything with what Facebook offers. You're just telling a website that you are who you say you are.

      Sounds like you're using Facebook for exactly it's intended purpose: to allow someone to build a big database of things that you do to target advertising. You're not just telling a website something, you're telling Facebook what other sites you visit and care enough about to log in to and what your identity on those sites is.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  3. Sustainable business model by pak9rabid · · Score: 2

    I don't see this business model of theirs being sustainable. Not to mention nobody in their right mind is going to want to acquire them with these restrictions bolted on.

    1. Re:Sustainable business model by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      If they managed to invent some super-efficient P2P protocol, they could steal some cycles and disk space from their users as a payment. But that seems a little bit far-fetched. A pipe^H^H^H^Htube dream of sorts.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  4. Oooh ... formally promised ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow, they formally promised.

    Is a formal promise more legally binding than a non-formal promise? Is it transferable and binding to someone who subsequently buys Ello?

    It sounds good in principle, but is it really legally binding in any sense?

    As always, I remain skeptical about such things ... because time and time again companies have reneged on such promises. Or after they've gone through bankruptcy/get sold the new owner simply ignores any of these things.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Oooh ... formally promised ... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 4, Informative

      It sounds good in principle, but is it really legally binding in any sense?

      Yes. A corporation's charter is legally binding on it, and "benefit corporations" are a distinct type of legal entity.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:Oooh ... formally promised ... by hsmith · · Score: 2

      Doesn't matter. Acquiring company can just purchase IP and not the corporation - thus invalidating all the cute "do no harm" language.

    3. Re:Oooh ... formally promised ... by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 2

      Either poster of parent did not bother to read further, or he is deliberately withholding information (a very nasty form of trolling).

      Benefit corporations are required in their Annual Report to stockholders to address their progress toward their stated goals, and their conformance with stated restrictions on activities. These reports are audited the same way any corporation's annual reports are audited.

      It is up to the stockholders to use this information to decide whether the corporation's board of directors needs to be replaced, or the company be dissolved, etc. So there is as much control on benefit corporations as on any other corporation, with that control in the hands of the stockholders.

      I can't see any other way this could be done. The concept is too new to say whether it will actually work, but the theory looks sound.

      --
      Will
    4. Re:Oooh ... formally promised ... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2

      So, this is a voluntary thing, doesn't involve any certification, has no actual enforcement, and only exist in about half the US states or slightly less.

      You're confusing certification with the status of a benefit corporation. Certification has no legal enforcement power other than revoking certification; OTOH, under the model legislation it just takes 2% of stockholders to initiate a benefit enforcement proceeding against a benefit corporation and have court enforce the public benefit provisions of its charter. (Your state may vary -- it looks like in NJ any stockholder can bring such action.)

      So long as it exists in the state where Ello is incorporated (which is apparently does), it doesn't matter that not all states yet have benefit corporation legislation.

      Yes, benefit corporations are new. If I was going to bet my life on questions of how courts will treat them I might be wary. But as a general matter they seem like they could be a useful way to reign in privacy violations by tech companies by providing a legally enforceable guarantee of behavior.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  5. Ironic: if you "OK" the manifesto it shares on FB by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ironic: when you "OK" the manifesto...it invites you to "Share the manifesto" on Facebook, Twitter, Pintrest, Google+, Tumblr, Reddit and LinkedIn.

  6. Re:Ironic: if you "OK" the manifesto it shares on by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

    The page also has Google Analytics tracking bugs in it.

  7. Re:Ironic: if you "OK" the manifesto it shares on by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And it serves up data from cloudfront, which is just a front end for Amazon's analytics, isn't it?

    It also makes references to integrating with YouTube, and doing an auto-push to "other" networks (which I assume is the list you gave).

    So, we won't sell your stuff, but we'll be so tightly integrated with these other sites that they'll know what you're doing anyway.

    If the whole point is to avoid Facebook et al, WTF is the point of broadcasting to them everything you do?

    Goodbye Ello.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  8. In bankruptcy, information is an asset by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And no matter what the charter is, if they are liquidated the court will sell all of your data to the highest bidder to pay off creditors.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:In bankruptcy, information is an asset by JDG1980 · · Score: 2

      And no matter what the charter is, if they are liquidated the court will sell all of your data to the highest bidder to pay off creditors.

      That is true if the user data is considered part of the bankruptcy estate. But that won't necessarily be the case. Under US law, everyone automatically has copyright for anything they write or compose. If the primary concern is to protect user privacy, the user agreement for the site could stipulate that users retain copyright to all their data, and the site has a nonexclusive, nontransferrable license to use that data so long as they adhere to the privacy terms. In the case of bankruptcy, the only "asset" would be the nontransferrable license – not the data itself, which would still belong to the end users.

      I expect issues like this to come up once a few mid-size or large cloud providers go broke. I don't think the courts are going to allow the creditors to seize data assets belonging to customers in these instances.

  9. Re:Open social network standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Tent is attempting to do this.

  10. Re:Open social network standard by pak9rabid · · Score: 2

    Wow...just about hit the nail on the head.

  11. Lots of weasel words in there by enjar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "user-specific" = "we are going to sell aggregated data"

    "on behalf of a third party" = "we are going to get direct ad sales up and running soon"

    #3 is just hysterical ... if they get acquired, they lose the right to any such thing as they become a wholly owned subsidiary, subject to whatever policies the parent company deems fit. As if it hasn't already happened about a billion times by startups who did one thing, then were bought up and summarily dismantled. Ello makes a false assumption that people give a damn about their product. An acquiring company may see it as a way to get a seasoned dev/qe team and shutter the service entirely. The examples of plucky startups that got pulled into the Apple/Google/Microsoft/$GINORMOUS_COMPANY orbit and summarily forgotten or dissolved is pretty big.

  12. Re:All that money... by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any typesetter will tell you that the choice of font is important to getting your message across.

    Ello's choice of a mono sans-serif font is significant for indicating that their message is a simple but powerful one. And that they are significantly different from their competitors.

    Volkswagen in the 1970s used the same approach to emphasize that their vehicles were so different from USA cars that you could not measure their performance using the same yardstick. Volkswagen was all about mpg and economy when USA car makings were competing on creature comforts and acceleration. Ello's choice of font is emphasizing that its product should not be judged with the same criteria that Facebook wants you to use.

    The danger with Ello's choice of font is that if used in conveying any message that is not simple, like instructions or an argument about the evils of advertising, many readers may feel like they are being treated as grade schoolers, and be turned off by the typesetting. Time will tell whether Ello will avoid that pitfall. Hopefully they have already chosen a proportional font for lengthier prose.

    --
    Will
  13. Re:All that money... by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Funny

    Monospaced fonts have a warm and rich sound that you just can't get out of a CD or digital file.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  14. Re:All that money... by ZecretZquirrel · · Score: 2

    Oh, horseshit. Good reason not to a typesetter's advice when designing a product. Cosmetics are only possibly good for getting that first date. A relationship based on cosmetics is doomed. Good gas mileage is not cosmetic.