4 ms·

This is a challenging line of reasoning. "I provided value to you and would like to be compensated" is a pretty basic foundation of all work and providing servi

This is a challenging line of reasoning. "I provided value to you and would like to be compensated" is a pretty basic foundation of all work and providing services. There will always be people happy to write Medium posts on the weekend but that's not the same as journalism the same way me tinkering with a drone is not SpaceX. If the content has value you read it. If it doesn't you don't.

askyourmother 11y ago
I don't think the content providers have actually attempted to have that value conversation with their customers though. Why? Because if faced frankly, a lot of the content is crap, and their customers would flee if pushed to pay. Some sites, e.g. The Financial Times have managed to secure paying customers for their site, customers who value the content. Sites that shy away from the honest conversation, with the risk their user base will walk en masse, have themselves to blame.
- jusben1369 11y ago
  "Flee if pushed to pay". This uses a very narrow definition of pay. The reach into your pocket to pay cash that you earned. But there are other ways to pay - ie with something else of value to you (time/attention), your vote in an election etc. Remember that Twitter competitor that was a monthly sub with no ads? It made the above mistake - that there was only one honorable way to launch and charge for a service that brings value to millions of people.
pessimizer 11y ago
Medium posts are no worse than institutional journalism. Journalism is also slightly less capital-intensive than spaceflight. I also don't know if content has value until after I've read it, and in the case of journalism I still don't know after I've read it, I'll just get closer to knowing if it was worth anything over time and in light of corroboration. I'd prefer that my money go to journalism based on a combination of how honest and thorough I think it is and its agreement with my own beliefs. That determination comes from a track record, and I'm not going to pay for it before I see it. That's entirely incompatible with the idea of journalism that massive conglomerates with conflicts so universal that they just have to generally support the status quo, try to propagate. I send money to journalism online that I rarely read. I read journalism online that I'd never give a penny to. I have read David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Friedman, and George Will. I'm not paying for that. I read plenty of stuff from people I despise. I've spent hours reading white supremacist message boards. I'm supposed to send them money or else remain wilfully ignorant of their publicly expressed opinions? Not a chance. I collect John Birch material; its material that I personally think the world would be better off if it never had been written. I should feel an ethical obligation to the authors and give them money? Let them come get it. edit: What's being discovered is that "publishers" were actually sellers of decorated paper. Once we didn't need paper, we didn't need them; the only reason they were ever considered managers of truth is because they were extremely large dealers of very detailed paper.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
> but that's not the same as journalism the same way me tinkering with a drone is not SpaceX. Bad example. SpaceX is one of the few companies where a lot of people would gladly work even for free. But yeah, I see what you mean. (Also, I wouldn't discount the knowledge of tinkerers / hobbyists - they often know much more than their peers doing the same stuff for money, because when you have such a hobby you're by definition motivated to learn and understand. A lot of tech jobs (especially programming) are done by people who were force-fed some basic education and then kind of ended up doing it because they need the money.) Back to the main point - it's not "I provided value to you and would like to be compensated". It's: "I created something that I say will provide you value, and for a chance of taking a look at it I demand you first talk with this random salesman (who is 100% totally legit and trustworthy!)". I.e. it's asking one to at best waste their time (at worst to hurt themselves seriously) to have a chance of viewing something that may or may not be of value.
- jusben1369 11y ago
  Sure (and I knew that SpaceX analogy was a risky one with this crowd!) Two thoughts. These are bigger publishers complaining. So there is a brand there and reputation meaning it's not I total crap shoot when you arrive there. And there are obnoxious ads on many sites - I think the industry carries a lot of blame for that for sure.
  - tajen 11y ago
    I read my national newspaper just the same as I browse 9Gag. They both compete for my leisure time. If they closed, I would probably read a book instead. News are optional, until they enable me to discuss with high educated people - but again, HN is free and provides much higher-quality education (when you include discussions in the comments) than any newspaper. So I'd pay for HN, I'd pay for some investigative journalism (e.g. Snowden leaks), but the rest of the news is leisure at a low price point per hour. Just like a book.
xori 11y ago
Yes, but I hardly consider most online news articles from these 17 sites to be "journalism" either.

askyourmother 11y ago

I don't think the content providers have actually attempted to have that value conversation with their customers though. Why? Because if faced frankly, a lot of the content is crap, and their customers would flee if pushed to pay. Some sites, e.g. The Financial Times have managed to secure paying customers for their site, customers who value the content. Sites that shy away from the honest conversation, with the risk their user base will walk en masse, have themselves to blame.

jusben1369 11y ago
"Flee if pushed to pay". This uses a very narrow definition of pay. The reach into your pocket to pay cash that you earned. But there are other ways to pay - ie with something else of value to you (time/attention), your vote in an election etc. Remember that Twitter competitor that was a monthly sub with no ads? It made the above mistake - that there was only one honorable way to launch and charge for a service that brings value to millions of people.

pessimizer 11y ago

Medium posts are no worse than institutional journalism. Journalism is also slightly less capital-intensive than spaceflight. I also don't know if content has value until after I've read it, and in the case of journalism I still don't know after I've read it, I'll just get closer to knowing if it was worth anything over time and in light of corroboration. I'd prefer that my money go to journalism based on a combination of how honest and thorough I think it is and its agreement with my own beliefs. That determination comes from a track record, and I'm not going to pay for it before I see it. That's entirely incompatible with the idea of journalism that massive conglomerates with conflicts so universal that they just have to generally support the status quo, try to propagate. I send money to journalism online that I rarely read. I read journalism online that I'd never give a penny to. I have read David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Friedman, and George Will. I'm not paying for that. I read plenty of stuff from people I despise. I've spent hours reading white supremacist message boards. I'm supposed to send them money or else remain wilfully ignorant of their publicly expressed opinions? Not a chance. I collect John Birch material; its material that I personally think the world would be better off if it never had been written. I should feel an ethical obligation to the authors and give them money? Let them come get it. edit: What's being discovered is that "publishers" were actually sellers of decorated paper. Once we didn't need paper, we didn't need them; the only reason they were ever considered managers of truth is because they were extremely large dealers of very detailed paper.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

> but that's not the same as journalism the same way me tinkering with a drone is not SpaceX. Bad example. SpaceX is one of the few companies where a lot of people would gladly work even for free. But yeah, I see what you mean. (Also, I wouldn't discount the knowledge of tinkerers / hobbyists - they often know much more than their peers doing the same stuff for money, because when you have such a hobby you're by definition motivated to learn and understand. A lot of tech jobs (especially programming) are done by people who were force-fed some basic education and then kind of ended up doing it because they need the money.) Back to the main point - it's not "I provided value to you and would like to be compensated". It's: "I created something that I say will provide you value, and for a chance of taking a look at it I demand you first talk with this random salesman (who is 100% totally legit and trustworthy!)". I.e. it's asking one to at best waste their time (at worst to hurt themselves seriously) to have a chance of viewing something that may or may not be of value.

jusben1369 11y ago
Sure (and I knew that SpaceX analogy was a risky one with this crowd!) Two thoughts. These are bigger publishers complaining. So there is a brand there and reputation meaning it's not I total crap shoot when you arrive there. And there are obnoxious ads on many sites - I think the industry carries a lot of blame for that for sure.
- tajen 11y ago
  I read my national newspaper just the same as I browse 9Gag. They both compete for my leisure time. If they closed, I would probably read a book instead. News are optional, until they enable me to discuss with high educated people - but again, HN is free and provides much higher-quality education (when you include discussions in the comments) than any newspaper. So I'd pay for HN, I'd pay for some investigative journalism (e.g. Snowden leaks), but the rest of the news is leisure at a low price point per hour. Just like a book.

xori 11y ago

Yes, but I hardly consider most online news articles from these 17 sites to be "journalism" either.