????不過在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上搶占道德高地也會(huì)碰到一些小問題,，比如人們會(huì)迫不及待地證明你的偽善,。就在Ello走紅后不久，該網(wǎng)站的一名用戶指出,，Ello已經(jīng)從風(fēng)投那里拉來了融資,。這說明Ello最終還得面臨賺錢的壓力，或者被賣給想通過Ello賺錢的人,。巴德尼茨也坦承投資者擁有該公司12%的股份,，并表示Ello“顯然是筆生意”。不出所料,，他的郵箱這周都快被表達(dá)風(fēng)投意向的信函擠爆了,。

????Ello目前依然存在缺乏隱私和阻止功能等問題，在這個(gè)網(wǎng)絡(luò)流氓泛濫的年代,，這個(gè)功能對(duì)任何社交媒體都是必不可少的,。Ello公司表示會(huì)盡快構(gòu)建相關(guān)功能，調(diào)整工作重點(diǎn),。他們就像政客對(duì)待選區(qū)的民眾一樣,，希望讓大家都滿意。不過對(duì)于討厭Ello的人,，巴德尼茨則毫不留情面,。他說：“如果你不喜歡我們正在做的事，請(qǐng)刪除你的賬戶并離開,?！?/p>

????對(duì)于Ello這樣一家原則性很強(qiáng)的公司來說，就算它真的能讓那些同樣很有原則的用戶感到高興,，它也依然面臨著一個(gè)更大的挑戰(zhàn),，那就是生存。想要成為一家成功的企業(yè),，Ello需要解決的一大任務(wù),，就是轉(zhuǎn)變互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)的整個(gè)業(yè)務(wù)模式,。

????從互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的襁褓階段開始，網(wǎng)絡(luò)上的內(nèi)容和傳播就一直在靠網(wǎng)友的眼球和廣告掙錢,。邁克爾?沃爾夫在1998年的著作《燒錢速度》（Burn Rate）一書中寫道,，90年代中期，《時(shí)代》（Time）和《連線》（Wired）雜志都分別意識(shí)到廣告對(duì)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的重要意義,。書中寫道：“用戶更傾向于接受廣告,，而不是花錢去購買內(nèi)容?！哆B線》在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)社區(qū)中的高度,，以及《時(shí)代》在廣告界的地位，幾乎一夜之間使廣告成了每個(gè)進(jìn)軍網(wǎng)絡(luò)的人都要考慮的問題”

????《連線》的第一條網(wǎng)頁橫幅廣告誕生于1994年,。以此為基礎(chǔ),，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)開始建立起來。根據(jù)IAB公司2012年的一項(xiàng)研究,，由廣告支持的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)為美國經(jīng)濟(jì)貢獻(xiàn)了大約5300億美元,，提供了200萬個(gè)直接工作崗位和310萬個(gè)間接工作崗位。

????這并非是說世界喜歡數(shù)字廣告,，而是廣告正好是最合適的東西,。《大西洋月刊》（The Atlantic）最近撰文稱,，數(shù)字廣告是“互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的原罪”,。因此，有少數(shù)內(nèi)心崇高又雄心勃勃（可能也有點(diǎn)幼稚）的公司希望能擺脫這種默認(rèn)的業(yè)務(wù)模式,。比如在Ello之前還有App.net和Diaspora等社交網(wǎng)絡(luò),，可惜他們的目標(biāo)雖然高尚，卻仍免不了曇花一現(xiàn)的命運(yùn),。

????Ello的商業(yè)計(jì)劃則有些不一樣,，該網(wǎng)站計(jì)劃根據(jù)功能收費(fèi)。如果你想在Ello上擁有2個(gè)賬戶,，你就得一次性支付2美元,。由于奉行極簡主義,，該網(wǎng)站剛發(fā)布時(shí)幾乎什么功能也沒有,，因此對(duì)每項(xiàng)新功能收費(fèi)成為Ello今后的可能性之一。

????巴德尼茨認(rèn)為,，App.net失敗的原因在于每年50美元的會(huì)員費(fèi)實(shí)在是太貴了,。不過我們現(xiàn)在還不清楚，哪怕Ello有再多的客戶,，光靠向用戶一次收取1到2美元如何能演變成一個(gè)規(guī)?？捎^的生意（更不用提盈利了）。雖然投資人可能會(huì)對(duì)此感到不爽，但Ello的幾位創(chuàng)始人卻認(rèn)為這樣沒什么不好,。Ello的聲明中表示,，Ello的創(chuàng)始人對(duì)統(tǒng)治世界不感興趣：“我們認(rèn)為，一心想當(dāng)老大的人,，肯定有一些沒解決的心理問題,。”（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：樸成奎

????There’s a small problem with being too self-righteous on the Internet, though: People are eager to point out your hypocrisy. Not long after Ello went viral, one of the site’s users pointed out that it had raised venture capital. The message was that the company will eventually be pressured to make lots of money or sell to someone who would likely do the same. Ello’s investors own 12% of the company, Budnitz says, and acknowledges that Ello is “obviously a business.” Unsurprisingly, his inbox has been flooded with venture capital interest this week.

????There have been issues with Ello’s lack of privacy and blocking features, a basic requirement for any social media site in the era of online bullying and harassment. The company has responded by building features as quickly as possible, moving around its priorities, not unlike a politician might do to keep various constituents happy. For the haters, Budnitz has little sympathy. “If you don’t like what we’re doing, then please delete your account and leave,” he says.

????Even if Ello, a company with strongly stated principles, can make its audience of users with strongly held beliefs happy, it faces a much bigger challenge: survival. To be a successful business, Ello faces the not insignificant task of turning Internet’s entire business model on its head.

????Content and communications on the Web have monetized with eyeballs and advertisements since the Web’s earliest days. In Michael Wolff’s 1998 book Burn Rate, the teams at Time and Wired magazines in the mid-1990s separately have a lightbulb moment: “Users prefer to accept advertising rather than pay for the cost of content.” He writes: “Wired’s stature in the Internet community, and Time’s stature in the advertising community nearly overnight made advertising part of everyone’s plans for the Web.”

????Wired’sfirst banner ad appeared in 1994. On that foundation, the Web’s economy was built. The ad-supported Web contributes around $530 billion to the U.S. economy, directly employing two million people and indirectly, 3.1 million, according to an IAB study from 2012, the latest available.

????It’s not that the world loves digital advertising. It’s that advertising happens to be the thing that works best. The Atlantic recently called digital advertising “the Internet’s original sin.” And so, we have a handful of noble, ambitious, possibly na?ve attempts to repent by reeling back Web’s default business model. Before Ello, there were the social networks App.net and Diaspora, both of which came up short in their lofty goals.

????Ello’s business plan is different. The site plans to charge for features. If you want to manage two different accounts on Ello, you will have to pay a one-time fee of $2. The site launched with hardly any features in order to be as simple as possible. That gives Ello the option of charging for each new feature it introduces.

????The problem with App.net, Budnitz says, is that its $50 per year membership was a high hurdle for people to get over. But it’s not clear how, even at scale, charging users $1 and $2 at a time could turn into a sizable (nevermind profitable) business. The company’s investors might not be okay with that, but Ello’s founders are. Its manifesto states that Ello’s founders are not interested in ruling the world: “We think people that are motivated to do things like that have unresolved psychological problems.”