Maybe it's not worth it? Maybe the value add just isn't there? I don't know how much Pornhub charge (I checked, £9.99/month, joys of working from home), but I d

Maybe it's not worth it? Maybe the value add just isn't there? I don't know how much Pornhub charge (I checked, £9.99/month, joys of working from home), but I do get harangued every once in a while for newspaper sites. "Only £x/month!", problem is it's not worth it for me. I generally don't consume one newspaper, I don't read articles from one place, I read them from multiple places. I pick and choose. I follow links on Twitter or Hacker News. I see these sites more like buskers than businesses. Perhaps if I could drop 10p in the pot with zero effort I might. I don't know. I'm certainly not going to go through the hassle of digging out the the first, third and eighth digits of my credit card 3dsecure passcode for it. Perhaps if they had a zero effort way of charging 10p every time someone used the site they'd get more people paying. Also, just comparing specific examples here. The Guardian ask for £5/month to become a supporter. It's almost tempting at that amount. For that you get stuff they've actually created. Pornhub want to charge £10/month for content they've basically stolen from somewhere else and are now serving with a simple tag based categorisation and video player. > "how do we keep getting all this content for free without paying" Maybe this is what people are saying, but not what they actually mean. Almost without fail adverts are intrusive, obnoxious, sometimes disgusting, CPU spinning malware delivery vectors. Perhaps the lack of middle ground between that, and paying more money than we think something is worth, is non-existent, and therefore filled with a workaround; adblockers. I think it's been done (micropayments), but perhaps being able to pay for a fraction of something is needed these days. Not one whole newspaper (the past) but one article (the present)