I agree with all of this and have for years. I want to save the internet without having make people think about it. About: > If the WSJ and WaPo shared subscr

I agree with all of this and have for years. I want to save the internet without having make people think about it. About: > If the WSJ and WaPo shared subscribers, the consumers would get double the content while the industry costs would stay the same. When consumers see additional value for their subscription dollars, they are more likely to sign up, increasing the number of potential customers. The problem is paywalls. Both need paywalls to improve their revenue. I have a protocol which covers both paywalled and unpaywalled sites. For the purposes of attracting ire, I applied for a US patent, which will hopefully land in the next month or two (I already hold an Australian one). Then, I suppose, it will be time to ask rich people for money so I can make them richer. Edit: To expand a bit, consider that all the existing successful schemes are walled gardens. App stores are walled gardens, Netflix is a walled garden, Spotify is too. But the web is, by its nature, an open garden. What I developed, effectively speaking, allows users to support websites without paywalls, or to be passed through a paywall, without ever noticing the difference. All they'd notice is the absence of ads on participating websites.