27 ms·

What you are describing is a world where only big, well financed, or well known entities can survive. In order to keep the amazing internet we actually have, we

What you are describing is a world where only big, well financed, or well known entities can survive. In order to keep the amazing internet we actually have, we need to come up with a model that can be used by small upstarts to either serve smaller markets or to give them time to figure things out and become large over time. Requiring people to publish things for free will only result in the most extreme of views. Look at any Wikipedia article that remotely touches a controversial topic - it will likely present a strongly biased message towards whatever side the maintainer of that article feels strongly about.

JDDunn9 11y ago
The world where only the big players can win is the one we live in now. It's difficult for a small player to be heard when Buzzfeed-type click-bate headlines dominate the landscape. Switch it around, who would pay for access to Buzzfeed? On the other hand, I would pay for an expert's opinion on a topic I'm passionate about. You only need 1,000 people paying $10 a month to make a good living. To get $120k from ads, you'll need a whole lot of visitors.
- icebraining 11y ago
  But Buzzfeed et all will survive, since their content is already ads itself (see "native advertising"). And $10/month is a tremendous amount. Follow 10 sites and you've spent 1/10 of the average wage in my European country, and more than 1/6 of the minimum wage. It'll only lead to a balkanization of the web, with good sites pricing for wealthy American and northern European visitors, and everyone else being left out.
Falkon1313 11y ago
There was a web before commercialization (and an internet before that) where people published things for free. There are still topics that people are interested in and thoughts that they want to share and discuss. You just don't notice it now because it's all drowned out by ad-financed clickbait and ads themselves being reposted, reblogged, retweeted, etc. You don't even realize that there is a free signal because of the all the commercial noise. People still publish personal blogs, comments, threads in forums, free software, help for other people, articles and data, etc. without getting paid for it.

JDDunn9 11y ago

The world where only the big players can win is the one we live in now. It's difficult for a small player to be heard when Buzzfeed-type click-bate headlines dominate the landscape. Switch it around, who would pay for access to Buzzfeed? On the other hand, I would pay for an expert's opinion on a topic I'm passionate about. You only need 1,000 people paying $10 a month to make a good living. To get $120k from ads, you'll need a whole lot of visitors.

icebraining 11y ago
But Buzzfeed et all will survive, since their content is already ads itself (see "native advertising"). And $10/month is a tremendous amount. Follow 10 sites and you've spent 1/10 of the average wage in my European country, and more than 1/6 of the minimum wage. It'll only lead to a balkanization of the web, with good sites pricing for wealthy American and northern European visitors, and everyone else being left out.

Falkon1313 11y ago

There was a web before commercialization (and an internet before that) where people published things for free. There are still topics that people are interested in and thoughts that they want to share and discuss. You just don't notice it now because it's all drowned out by ad-financed clickbait and ads themselves being reposted, reblogged, retweeted, etc. You don't even realize that there is a free signal because of the all the commercial noise. People still publish personal blogs, comments, threads in forums, free software, help for other people, articles and data, etc. without getting paid for it.