Are you angry at Readability? Do you love Instapaper and want to have Marco’s baby? Do you have sand in your vagina?
I can’t believe how up in arms the Internet (read: know-it-alls) have gotten about Readability’s “link hijacking”. The crux of the KIAs’ argument is that their darling Instapaper links back to the original link (that Instapaper hijacks when you save it directly from a Twitter client) while Readability sends links directly to the copy of the saved article on Readability’s servers. While I can understand that content creators don’t want to lose page views, let’s not forget that Marco and Instapaper have made their money by stripping pages of their ads and reformatting content and storing a copy its own server. Even if the reading service visits the originating page for a moment so that the original site can log a page view, Instapaper, ReadItLater and Readability are all stripping ads from the site. So you’re either pulling page views from the writer, or side-stepping the advertisers’ intended ad. All reading services screw somebody, be it the writer or the advertisers they’re bypassing.
Nobody wants to admit that they’ve been looking past the intended way of viewing the content they saved to Instapaper through their own Twitter client. The KIAs love Marco. He’s been around for a while and he’s the little guy. He’s a one man shop (and it shows in his visual design). When Gruber calls Readability “scumbags” he’s abusing his celebrity. I doubt Readability’s goal was to screw Daring Fireball out of page views. Readability was probably just trying to make it easier to share the view that its users actually want to share. If you’re reading something in Readability, you like the way Readability formats your saved articles and you probably think other people should read them in the same manner that you yourself did. Calling Readability “scumbags” denotes that they were trying to slight you intentionally, which I can’t believe they would.