5 ms·

Unfortunate. Goes to show that you really can't break even without ads or selling/analysing data with a centralised social network.

hkmurakami 10y ago
or put another way, "people don't want to pay for most things"
- AceJohnny2 10y ago
  Some variant of Sturgeon's Law?
  - hkmurakami 10y ago
    Not necessarily. I'd make some comment about people's price elasticities (or maybe "people overvalue free"), but I'm not exactly sure what it would be.
- dgfgfdagasdfgfa 10y ago
  Or to put it another way, people care more about money than their own privacy.
  - paulcole 10y ago
    Yep. I have a limited amount of money that I need to spend on more essential purchases. I'll happily trade my data/privacy for the right frivolity. When someone starts letting me pay for groceries with my browser history sign me up.
    - vertis 10y ago
      That would be thousands of dollars a year in value. Do you happen to have anything to offer besides your browser history? An email list perhaps?
    - 72deluxe 10y ago
      If your browser history consisted of you shopping for groceries, would this be a self-paying system and eternal free food? Good idea isn't it?
  - yeukhon 10y ago
    For the right price I'm okay. I paid Netflix for an account but they use my data to train their algorithm and enhance their product. I don't know all the details behind their work. Am I not trading their privacy? Do I really know if they aren't selling my data my preference with another partner? Do I want to pay $$ for social network? I have to weigh what justifies cost for me; most of my friends won't pay for an account for Facebook, and because I enjoy having an online social network with my real life friends, I am okay for as long as Facebook doesn't sell my name to advertiser (they can track my browser history for sure and I know they do). I accept the risk and I keep a close eyes on my online activity so nothing backfires on me.
  - intoverflow2 10y ago
    Don't think it's really about privacy in this case. I mean how can anyone seriously be a Twitter user and caring about their privacy. Would be like standing in the town square screaming your thoughts into a loud speaker then being upset that everyone knows what your thinking.
- Esau 10y ago
  Personally, I always wanted to see a site that has ads and is free to read, but charges a small fee to create an account - just to see if it would help reduce trolling and sock puppets.
  - mistersquid 10y ago
    Do you mean something like Metafilter? [0] Anonymous users see ads. Authenticated users don't. It costs $5 for an account. They have run funding drives but, to date, $5/user keeps the lights on and provides a small crew of moderators each a modest stipend. [0] http://www.metafilter.com http://www.metafilter.com Edit: spelling, grammar.
    - thanatropism 10y ago
      Or The WELL, which has the best interface hands down of any social network -- but it's filled with a homogeneous paste of same-aged, same-politics, same-favorite-Dead-live-bootleg Classic Nerd-Hippies.
  - unimpressive 10y ago
    SomethingAwful does this, it works.
rhizome 10y ago
you really can't break even without ads or selling/analysing data with a centralised social network I don't think we actually know that as a fact, it's just that not much else has been tried.
- _up 10y ago
  I find cloud feadreader aren't that different at least from the view point of a passive reader. They seem to be profitable, by restricting free features. Like: only x feeds free to aggregate and a ~15 minute delay of all feeds. Search is also a pro feature. I also have the feeling twitter is extremely over engineered.

hkmurakami 10y ago

or put another way, "people don't want to pay for most things"

AceJohnny2 10y ago
Some variant of Sturgeon's Law?
- hkmurakami 10y ago
  Not necessarily. I'd make some comment about people's price elasticities (or maybe "people overvalue free"), but I'm not exactly sure what it would be.
dgfgfdagasdfgfa 10y ago
Or to put it another way, people care more about money than their own privacy.
- paulcole 10y ago
  Yep. I have a limited amount of money that I need to spend on more essential purchases. I'll happily trade my data/privacy for the right frivolity. When someone starts letting me pay for groceries with my browser history sign me up.
  - vertis 10y ago
    That would be thousands of dollars a year in value. Do you happen to have anything to offer besides your browser history? An email list perhaps?
  - 72deluxe 10y ago
    If your browser history consisted of you shopping for groceries, would this be a self-paying system and eternal free food? Good idea isn't it?
- yeukhon 10y ago
  For the right price I'm okay. I paid Netflix for an account but they use my data to train their algorithm and enhance their product. I don't know all the details behind their work. Am I not trading their privacy? Do I really know if they aren't selling my data my preference with another partner? Do I want to pay $$ for social network? I have to weigh what justifies cost for me; most of my friends won't pay for an account for Facebook, and because I enjoy having an online social network with my real life friends, I am okay for as long as Facebook doesn't sell my name to advertiser (they can track my browser history for sure and I know they do). I accept the risk and I keep a close eyes on my online activity so nothing backfires on me.
- intoverflow2 10y ago
  Don't think it's really about privacy in this case. I mean how can anyone seriously be a Twitter user and caring about their privacy. Would be like standing in the town square screaming your thoughts into a loud speaker then being upset that everyone knows what your thinking.
Esau 10y ago
Personally, I always wanted to see a site that has ads and is free to read, but charges a small fee to create an account - just to see if it would help reduce trolling and sock puppets.
- mistersquid 10y ago
  Do you mean something like Metafilter? [0] Anonymous users see ads. Authenticated users don't. It costs $5 for an account. They have run funding drives but, to date, $5/user keeps the lights on and provides a small crew of moderators each a modest stipend. [0] http://www.metafilter.com http://www.metafilter.com Edit: spelling, grammar.
  - thanatropism 10y ago
    Or The WELL, which has the best interface hands down of any social network -- but it's filled with a homogeneous paste of same-aged, same-politics, same-favorite-Dead-live-bootleg Classic Nerd-Hippies.
- unimpressive 10y ago
  SomethingAwful does this, it works.

rhizome 10y ago

you really can't break even without ads or selling/analysing data with a centralised social network I don't think we actually know that as a fact, it's just that not much else has been tried.

_up 10y ago
I find cloud feadreader aren't that different at least from the view point of a passive reader. They seem to be profitable, by restricting free features. Like: only x feeds free to aggregate and a ~15 minute delay of all feeds. Search is also a pro feature. I also have the feeling twitter is extremely over engineered.