4 ms·
Taking 20% on top of 5-10% processor fees seems high compared to Flattr's flat 10%. Something doesn't sit right with me ethically about this concept.
by cr3ative 10y ago
Taking 20% on top of 5-10% processor fees seems high compared to Flattr's flat 10%.
Something doesn't sit right with me ethically about this concept.
- random28345 10y agoThis is a problem that badly needs to be solved. Advertising revenue is the incentive for news organizations to provide a conduit for malware onto your computer, and there isn't anyone who thinks that's a good idea. If these guys can solve this problem, get buy-in from publishers, and provide revenue to support good journalism while solving the problem of needing many subscriptions to multiple news sites, perhaps they deserve their 30% vig. But if they are successful, it's more likely that someone will come along, do the same thing, and only charge 2%.
- onion2k 10y agoThis is a problem that badly needs to be solved. The problem that needs solving is to make ad networks and advertisers do a better job, not to transfer the payment model of the internet from companies that want to pay for marketing to users who have comparatively very little money. Approximately $70bn is spent on digital advertising in the US alone. That's hundreds of dollars per person. No payment model that relies on direct payment is going to maintain that sort of funding level, so no one who makes money from adverts is going to accept it.
- jacques_chester 10y ago> Something doesn't sit right with me ethically about this concept. I've watched several schemes collapse because the collected fees were simply too low. There is no ethical system that spits out Platonic percentages. People charge or don't charge and buy or don't buy, as they please.