Talk:Disqus

I was hoping to comment on an article ( Not in Wikipedia).

I found I couldn’t use my email address to register for an account to make my comment.

I decided to look up disqus, since that seemed relevant. I found this Wikipedia article.

Here, I found this statement seems important:

Privacy issues have been noted as inherent in the use of services like Disqus, which serve their content through third-party JavaScript widgets.[17][18][19] As with other embedded web widgets, such as like buttons, the Disqus widget acts as a web bug which tracks a user's activities, even when they are not logged in, across different sites that use the Disqus commenting system. Information tracked by Disqus, which may be disclosed to third parties, includes pseudonymous analytics data, such as a user's IP address, their web browser version and installed add-ons, and their referring pages and exit links.[20] Although this data is referred to by Disqus as "Non-Personally Identifiable Information", such data, when aggregated, has been shown to be usable for de-anonymizing users.[18]

Could there be another paragraph or two about ways of providing the type of service Disqus offers without the privacy concerns highlighted here and that are likely common to other easy ways of logging in to provide comments on a webpage or similar entity.

I don’t know what such services look like. I guess they exist, but maybe only on a limited scale due to problems getting a good income.

Disqus promotes Censorship and therefore is illegal, immoral and worthless

Who protects the free speech/opinion/intellectual property of the commenter? Not the corrupt asian american creator daniel ha! Disqus violates human rights, because it allows moderation from website owners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DC:CF37:1500:25D7:A913:D965:B70D (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Commenting with Disqus/Privacy Concerns

I have made comments as a guest on sites using Disqus by merely supplying my E-mail address and a guest name; not sure how that relates to privacy concerns, but as a relatively unsophisticated user, it seems to me to be a decent balance; how do we reflect that here? Foro those who understand all the technical information, check the following link: http://docs.disqus.com/developers/sso/ , which explains single sign-in, and poke around backwards from that link for other technical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.11.242 (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Consider adding a "Controversies" section in the article. I and many others have boycotted DISQUS and all organizations who use it, for they go way beyond merely verifying one's Yahoo! or other logon credentials by requiring access to (for Yahoo! accounts) Contacts, Status, and Updates. Their business model is to increase advertising revenue to businesses which host online discussions by selling users' private information. That might help the bottom line somewhat, but at what expense? Not mine. That's a violation of my privacy I and most others won't tolerate.23:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.216.30 (talk)

I think it is fair to say there is definitely a privacy concern when it comes to Disqus. I came to this page because after having used it on a website I had second thoughts and I wasn't really sure what I had given Disqus permission to do. I do know that when I signed into my Yahoo account and went to disable Disqus I was told the following about what kind of "access" I had allowed.I had given permission for Disqus to: 1) Obtain your Contacts data from Yahoo! Contacts. 2) Obtain and update your status message. 3) Share your activities and manage the updates you receive. That is Yahoo's own wording, not mine. I think this IS controversial because Disqus (and Yahoo) was most definitely not clear about this when I agreed on that website to use Disqus. Best of luck on straightening all of this out. Gzl5ry (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I came here precisely to find detailed information (Pro and Con) about how DISQUS interacts between me and various websites that I visit. And this year there ARE serious Internet-wide Privacy issues being raised. And, as a long term commenter at Wikipedia I expect articles to be factual and complete (also including controversial issues). DISQUS is a major player on the Internet, and therefore its Privacy Concerns DO need to be addressed in today's Internet. On Wikipedia I expect "just the facts" but we must have ALL the facts, like them or not. What is DISQUS? What and how does it do what it does? Beyond its up-front services, what's behind the curtain? Expand the "funding" section beyond the original "venture capitalists" to include it's current "funding model"? How does it use cookies, etc. What privacy issues are being raised, if any? Us links to other discussions to minimize active "controversy" here. Sorry I can't edit directly, I came looking for information. HalFonts (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I SIGNED UP TO DIAQUS AND MY CONTACTS LIST WAS HACKED INTO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.239.149 (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Privacy related content removed

All content relating to privacy concerns was removed today by someone who I suspect may be an employee of Disqus, indicating a possible WP:COI violation. If my suspicion is correct, then a conflict of interest declaration should be posted here by that user, and their edits should be subjected to extra scrutiny, and they should defend any substantial changes they make.

May I recommend you simply revert the article? If it's removed again, and your content is properly sourced, contest it using Wikipedia's outstanding (I say this tongue in cheek) dispute resolution process. If you work at it hard enough, your case should be won, and it keeps getting reverted, they'll lock out their account.23:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.216.30 (talk)

I don't think any of the content was attributed to reliable sources, so in this instance, it's hard for any of us to insist it not be removed, but it definitely raises eyebrows anytime an article like this is suddenly "sanitized", making it read like a brochure for the company, especially when it seems to be one of the company's own employees authoring the content. —mjb (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC) I HAVE HAD MY CONTACT LIST OF MY YAHOO ACCOUNT HACKED INTO AND EMAILS WERE SENT TO ALL MY CONTACTS FROM MY EMAIL ADDRESS. Fortunately no harm was done. Yahoo have since advised me to cut with DISQUS and I have done so. My advice is DO NOT SIGN IN TO DISQUS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.239.149 (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest declaration

I work for the community support and outreach team for Disqus, so my edits to this article may represent a conflict of interest. As per the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline, I am declaring my affiliation with the article's subject and am announcing my intention to be extra cautious in the edits I make here. For the record, I'm very publicly on our company Twitter account and on our blog.

Yesterday I sanitized the Disqus wiki page. The majority of information I corrected fell into one of the following categories:

• Improper citation -- "If the user has a Disqus account, then it tracks all their comments across the websites that use Disqus" cited http://www.inquisitr.com/11002/intense-debate-vs-disqus-why-i-nearly-switched/ which discusses a downage we once had and some WordPress plugin conflicts, but nothing about how we use cookies.
• Blatant inaccuracy with no citation -- "Disqus does not work with all browsers, supporting only Internet Explorer and Firefox, and rarely works on mobile devices."
• Inflammatory with an improper citation -- "The use of Disqus has raised privacy concerns about the ability to post comments anonymously" cited http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/may/26/independent-times-anonymous-postings/ which didn't even mention the word privacy nor did it or its comments discuss privacy concerns; it's an article about anonymity/pseudonymity and spam.

Per mjb's suggestion, I'd like to expand on that third point above: I removed the 192 words devoted to the topic of privacy (there were 295 total words in the article). My decision was reasoned as follows:

• Again, the citations were either incorrect, improper, or missing.
• The whole page seemed slanted against Disqus (as in Disqus = not private = bad), rather than being objective. Again, 192/295 words were devoted to the topic of privacy. The decision to include sentences like "Using a Facebook profile requires even more information" (which is incorrect), phrase them in an exaggeratory way ("even more"), and to then not include other pertinent, holistic sentences (e.g., "Commenting via Disqus is possible as a guest (i.e., no registered account is required), with a registered Disqus account, or by logging in with Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yahoo, or OpenID.") seemed to me to be motivated by a desire to paint an unfounded, negative portrait of Disqus.

As for why I did not add in proper information on privacy:

• After looking at other popular web services' Wiki pages I did not see similar concerns about cookies. I mostly based our page off of Digg's and Reddit's.
• I Googled but was unable to find anything. I even asked our team and no one could think of anything that had formally been written about the matter.

Moving forward, I'm sure there is good, citable information out there somewhere about Disqus and privacy and I'll spend some time searching for it and will add to our page. As someone who works for a company that champions pseudonymity, I would very much prefer to include these concerns on our wiki page but only when a proper citation can be found. I also see Google has a good section on privacy.

Any questions or suggestions (especially on the privacy topic) please contact me on my user talk page or reach out to me on my personal Twitter account. Thanks! —thetylerhayes —Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for that. I wish all people in your position were so level-headed. —mjb (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your declaration. Having been honest in reporting your conflict of interest, it's time to do the honest thing and BACK OFF. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to be edited by anyone. If the content reflects negatively on your company, then your company has a problem. Censoring honest, objective content is not an action based on either honesty or integrity. Doing so undermines both the integrity of DISQUS as well as Wikipedia. So, do the right thing and knock it off. 23:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.216.30 (talk)

Addendum: I Googled "DISQUS privacy concerns" and discovered more than a dozen rock-solid, well-referenced, objective reports of DISQUS' infamous intrusions into users' privacy. Thus, when you claim "I Googled but was unable to find anything" the only two conclusions available involve incompetence or deceit. I apologize, as I intend no offense. However, such claims in light of abundant evidence available to every Googler's fingertips smack of an open-palmed innocent plea while the dagger burns a whole in your back pocket.23:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.216.30 (talk)

I concur with that. I Googled (past year): DISQUS privacy concerns, (no quotes, quotes restrict to only 4 hits), which gave a lot of hits, with what I would call some satisfactory references right on the first page. I'm not going to defend a vague straw-man description of "rock-solid, ..." references; that sort of hyperbolic opening is only an invitation to an equally vague rebutal. The references are the sort of data that give sufficient support to the claim being made (they are: satisfactorily authoritative, pertinent to the exact issue at hand, sufficiently recent, probably stable [won't disappear too easily], etc.) that they should be included in a Wikipedia article, with linking footnotes. I invite the strong of heart to reinstate the critique, knowing the Disqus has the personnel to maintain a persistent removal, and working of the Wikipedia appeal labyrinth, and the baroque efflorescence of argument/counterargument that can appear on discussion page. (Then there's the contributions of editors and rollbackers). Good luck. I'm not going through that myself; suffice I've signed my username!JohndanR (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you please add those to this wiki then? Or at least link me to some? I'd be happy to add them as I mentioned in my original COI declaration. But I've performed the same search (and many other similar searches) at least once a week since my original COI declaration and have yet to find anything that is rock-solid or well-referenced. —thetylerhayes (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2012 (PST)

Commenting with Disqus/Privacy Concerns

I agree with most of the comments and my experience is since the time i used disqus on quite few social sites for logging in the email seemed to sent more number of spam/junk/phishing/cookies and many more with my commputer.. I believe there is a big concern with how disqus model of business operanda is and was surprised that it would manage to be in business even after 6 solid years of users complaints... Something i am completely amazed .

New product

Disqus has launched a new product that's reshaping their entire revenue system. It's a content-discovery platform with audience targeting capabilities. http://disqus.com/audience/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.33.100 (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

But what does it DO?

All that's here seems to be written by geeks for geeks. I have no idea what an "online and commenting" something or other is.

Walk us through it. How do you join? What happens when you join? What info do you give out when you join? Tito john (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Start here, with Wikipedia. If one reads an article and wants to discus ways it might be improved or read other people's opinion on the article, one opens the Talk page: in a sense, the Talk tab is for certain types of comments.

Some web sites (such as Huffington Post) that feature news and opinion provide opportunities for its readers to express opinions about the articles have their own built-in Comment editors: all that's required is to register with the site, and log in. On the other hand, many web sites prefer to "farm out" their Comments section to a third party (or second party) service such as Disqus.

Here's what I did when I wanted to place comments on a site that used Disqus:

First, I chose 'Register on Disqus.' Second, I typed a User Name (same as this one), an email sddress, and composed a password.

That did it.

After that, I was able to write comments to some of the articles (and reply to other people's comments, which I didn't mention above.)

JWMcCalvin (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Criticism

The "criticism" is simply not true and not factual. I use it almost every day. NO problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starhistory22 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It simply does not work.

Most times it will not load.

If it finally loads, after several attempts, it will usually not allow me to log in.

If it finally allows me to log in, after several attempts, it will usually not print my comment.

It is nearly totally dysfunctional.

Disqus -ting. ---Dagme (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I had the same frustrating problem (not loading) until I switched from Firefox to Chrome: then Disqus comments loaded perfectly. It may have to do with the NoScript feature if you use it with Firefox (I chose not to install it with Chrome). Ironically, once I registered with Disqus while on Chrome, afterword I was able to log in to Disqus on Firefox by allowing two Disqus scripts.

So, try with Chrome and see what happens.

JWMcCalvin (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Disqus using employee commentator's in the style of the World Wrestling Entertainment

In well over a year of watching comments very closely it looks to me like Disqus is heavy using in house commentator's with the intent to make it seem like are more comments than there really are, and to provoke unknowing people into making comments. On many sites it seems Disqus employees can be making up to 90% of the comments on both sides of the issue. Often these commentator's, in the style of the World Wrestling Entertainment will make outrageous comments and insults. Many times more than one commentator will use the exact same unique lines and will argue with each other.

Many of the fake commentator's names imply what part they are playing. Bob The Banker https://disqus.com/by/dobsonjones/ is a pro gun capitalist. TennMann1 https://disqus.com/by/TennMann1/ is a southern hick and StanW from Texas is a short tempered pro gun Texan who can't spell (even with spell check). Henry Krinkel (who in the past was Anthonylast) is an ultra liberal who always corrects ignorant Stans incorrect spelling of the word sieze with: That would be "seize", Jethro.

Both Anthony and Henry along with several of the other "personalities" repeatedly use the exact same barbs: Your observations are consistent with those of most imbeciles.;---Thanks for taking time out of your busy electroshock schedule to comment.--A simple "I can't." Would have expressed your point more effectively;-----Stormfront called. They want their talking point back;------Have you suffered a recent concussion? Just curious.:------- What's this? A gun nut, who is, additionally, a racist Breitbart reader? What a shock.;-------Sure they are, Jethro.;------Please stay put, and remain calm. A whaaammmbulance has been dispatched, and should arrive shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.189.101.11 (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC) leading one to believe they are the work of one or two people. While anyone else using the same insulting language will be blocked these commentator's appear to be "whitelisted".

Mother Jones http://www.motherjones.com/node/275536 Henry Krinkel henrykrinkel https://disqus.com/by/henrykrinkel/comments/ (and in the past as Anthonylast) has been having the same anti gun/pro gun argument (show below on Mother Jones) with Curtis Raven https://disqus.com/by/curtis_raven/ for 2 years now. They go back and forth and after awhile start all over again at the beginning of the "script".

henrykrinkel to Curtis Raven • 12 hours ago As opposed to laptop heroes such as yourself, who are seasoned urban combat veterans? Regale us, please, with a few accounts of your having engaged in shootouts with homicidal combatants.

Curtis Raven to henrykrinkel • 12 hours ago Never needed to. Like I said, I carry only when other means of staying away from trouble are not possible. I have had a gun drawn on me twice. Luckily, both times, I talked the situation down and nobody got shot. I was unarmed once and armed the second. I did stop a car jacking once. It was happening within a few yards of my deer blind. Two men with knives decided that they did not want to take on one man with a modern sporting rifle. An LR-308. We all waited politely for the sheriff to arrive.

henrykrinkel Curtis Raven • 12 hours ago Cool stories, bro.

Curtis Raven henrykrinkel • 12 hours ago You did ask. You even said please.

henrykrinkel Curtis Raven • 11 hours ago I'm still waiting for evidence of your expertise in "actual gunfighting".

Curtis Raven henrykrinkel • 10 hours ago Wow, Should I make a list of all of the things I am waiting for from you? Crack use is the sole driver of murder rates. There are no full auto's in Swiss homes. NRA does not support due process rights. Cities have a higher percentage of CCW. That list is endless.

henrykrinkel Curtis Raven • an hour ago My request doesn't require you to research, or to assess, or to link. It simply requires you to provide evidence of your expertise in "actual gunfighting". You're the tough guy. Let's have it.

Curtis Raven henrykrinkel • 14 hours ago Yes, I am sure you will be the author of many of those nasty posts.

henrykrinkel Curtis Raven • 14 hours ago I'm sorry you're too gutless to take responsibility for the utterances of your brothers-in-arms.

henrykrinkel TennMann1 2 hours ago

LaPierre's speech was not an "abstraction". It was very real, and it was tailored for gun mongering drama queens just like you.

henrykrinkel 3 hours ago

Gun rights activists are sick and tired of gun grabbers' illogical, emotion-driven appeals for gun control, and remind us that, without guns, we will be defenseless against Obama's jack-booted Marxist thugs when they kick down our doors, rape and torture our families, and drag us all off to FEMA extermination camps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.189.101.11 (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

One month later same silly stuff still going on https://disqus.com/home/discussion/motherjones/america039s_cops_shoot_more_people_than_criminals_do_in_these_countries/#comment-2065785848 http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/police-shootings-america-developed-countries

henrykrinkel Curtis Raven an hour ago It was the part where hopped onto his rickety bandwagon for a chummy little round of "you're the real racist". It is a game favored by those such as "2nd" and their fraternity of enablers.

henrykrinkel Curtis Raven 3 hours ago

You were halfway under the sheets with him before you realized that he was starting to embarrass you. Whate a shameless rube you are, "Curtis".

henrykrinkel Curtis Raven 3 hours ago Sure it did, "Curtis". Right under where it agreed that crack use doesn't result in violent behaviors.

henrykrinkel Curtis Raven 3 hours ago

"2nd"'s initial comment and his coy defense of it had "closeted racist" written all over them. You opted to overlook that, and to, instead, join forces with him in a little round of "you're the real racist". The guy turned out to be exactly the scumbag I spotted him for, and you thought you'd found a new friend. How embarrassing for you, "Curtis".

henrykrinkel Curtis Raven 4 hours ago

Oh, right. I forgot. You're the guy who thinks that legalizing crack, and heroin, and meth, along with loosening restrictions upon gun ownership and carry will render America even more peaceful than it is already.

henrykrinkel Curtis Raven 7 hours ago

You opted to defend "2nd"'s original comment, despite its obvious racist undertones. You did so because you identified him as a fellow gun nut, and, therefore, deserving of some slack. I wasn't "wrong" at all, "Curtis".

henrykrinkel Curtis Raven 8 hours ago

Bummer, "Curtis". It looked for a little while like you and "2nd" might have a thing going. You both like guns, and you both believe that anybody who disagrees with you is the real racist. Oh, well. You'll just need to keep looking.

henrykrinkel Curtis Raven 8 hours ago OK. Try "Measuring Crack Cocaine and Its Impact", Harvard Press, 2007.

henrykrinkel Curtis Raven 8 hours ago

Really? I assumed that you were so bereft of intellectual resources that you were resigned to parroting my comments, and amending them so as to tailor them to your cheesy agenda, since that was all you could manage. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Disqus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130705221155/http://www.lijit.com:80/blog/2011/03/02/lijit-study-shows-publisher-adoption-of-social-media-tools-grows-80 to http://www.lijit.com/blog/2011/03/02/lijit-study-shows-publisher-adoption-of-social-media-tools-grows-80/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Black Hat CEO allegations

On 7 November 2014, the article was edited to assert that Disqus uses "Black Hat SEO" tools in its tracking. The edit was by a one-time IP address 'contributor.' The source provided was unreliable, from the blog/website of "Luke Martinez," a self-described SEO expert. Given the anonymous, one-off edit, the contribution may have been by Mr. Martinez himself. It's been removed. Tapered (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Disqus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120615042012/http://www.quantcast.com:80/p-94WKwgUwZHlfo to http://www.quantcast.com/p-94WKwgUwZHlfo
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130729050518/http://blog.disqus.com:80/post/1601916020/new-disqus-v4 to http://blog.disqus.com/post/1601916020/new-disqus-v4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130630162537/http://blog.disqus.com:80/post/35273949228/whats-new-for-the-new-disqus to http://blog.disqus.com/post/35273949228/whats-new-for-the-new-disqus

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Disqus employees "George Hanson" on The Hill to incite comments

As they seemed to do on Mother Jones Disqus employee commentators like "George Hanson" https://disqus.com/by/disqus_CkHtcm02kn/ and "Lee Clayton https://disqus.com/by/disqus_A6DhgtMAaL/ in the style of the World Wrestling Entertainment are now on the Hill using all the same insults and comments logged above.

The Hill comments http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/353230-san-juan-mayor-recovery-effort-is-not-about-politics-and-petty with the intent to make it seem like are more comments than there really are, and to provoke unknowing people into making comments.

On many sites it seems Disqus employees can be making up to 90% of the comments on both sides of the issue. Often these commentator's, in the style of the World Wrestling Entertainment will make outrageous comments and insults. Many times more than one commentator will use the exact same unique lines and will argue with each other. https://disqus.com/by/disqus_CkHtcm02kn/

change my e mail 2603:9000:AF01:68FC:3A78:53DB:4884:F3A4 (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)