visitors

You are right about YouTube and I actually think they should handle visitors that come from outside YouTube differently than visitors from inside the site.

Giving unregistered visitors a text field that doesn't require approval before being listed, that's just downright dangerous!

It doesn't mean they now become a full time growth hacker; it just means that visitors need to convert somehow, and some design skills can achieve that.

Men kissing each other on the mouth in South Western France suggests something specific for visitors.

In total, our analytics backend system needs to handle over 30 billion monthly events from over 450 million monthly unique visitors.

For recurring visitors it's probably more since advertisers have more info about them.

I hope this takes off;-) But they really need more flight offerings otherwise visitors will loose interest.

Which, in the case of web fonts, are the visitors of the website.

My philosophy is that stock photos are bad when you could be using that space to visually give visitors information about your product/site/organization/whatever.

Giving visitors a vote button will shake your faith in the internet.

Of course it's OK for sites to block visitors running AdBlock.

If anyone is on shaky moral ground here, it's sites that are tracking visitors and selling information about them to unknown third parties with unknown goals.

You would need to find a precedent for an "open to the public" property's owner's right to restrict visitors from ( off property) telling others what merchant-tenants were offering, under what terms, on that property.

Correct, and that doesn't even consider that "That ethical principle applies just as much to websites as coffee shops" analogy is flawed because in this case the product (content) is provided by the visitors, entirely different from any typical retail store for which this legislation was originally drafted.