3 ms·

No. I don't think you get the problem. If I'm spending $10 or so on all these media and entertainment folks, the first day of the month might be bad, but the

No. I don't think you get the problem. If I'm spending $10 or so on all these media and entertainment folks, the first day of the month might be bad, but the 20th or day after the 3rd Wednesday might be just fine. A lot of people living on fixed incomes or paycheck to paycheck manage their money closely. Given how banks work, a $1 charge at the wrong time is seriously problematic. I realize SV never has to worry, but how about making it easier for janitor who cleans your building or the person making your coffee to participate in the digital economy?

Mz 10y ago
You let such people participate by designing systems where content producers can make money without getting money from every individual. I think you have a point, but perhaps you should submit it as a suggestion directly to Patreon. Second, I have tip jars so people can give once without making a monthly commitment. Monthly commitments are a serious burden for poor people. I intentionally list dollar amounts of $1, $3 and $5 to solicit small sums so people who can't afford more than $1 feel okay about giving $1. The jar is set up so you can then enter a quantity if you want to give more, for example 2 Tips at $5 to leave a total of $10. Most people who tip leave me $5 or more. But I do sometimes get $1. (This is really about 67 cents for me, but I don't want to treat other poor people like charity cases. I think that actively creates problems.)
- protomyth 10y ago
  > You let such people participate by designing systems where content producers can make money without getting money from every individual. > Monthly commitments are a serious burden for poor people. A lot of people don't want charity and are fine with paying their own share. What I am trying to say is simple, the timing of payment is often critical for people. $10 on day 1 of a month is not the same as $10 in the third week. Most utilities get this. It would be nice if people planning the future of paying for website, news, etc. get this through their head before they leave out part of the population. > This is really about 67 cents for me, but I don't want to treat other poor people like charity cases. I think that actively creates problems.) That is a good attitude because treating other poor people as charity cases often leads to contempt even if its subtle. A lot of poor people won't be that way later, but they will still have the memories.
joshuamorton 10y ago
My point is that if you're living paycheck to paycheck in such a way that when you get paid impacts when you can pay your expenses, you shouldn't be paying for things like patreon, you should be saving that money into a rainy day fund. That is, people living paycheck to paycheck aren't (and shouldn't be) the target audience of Patreon, because they really shouldn't be using Patreon. Or in other words, if "a $1 charge at the wrong time can be seriously problematic", you shouldn't be spending on patreon, you should be instead saving up that money until a $1 charge isn't problematic. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, but this problem is solvable by waiting a month to join the service, and paying each month with last month's funds. Also the snark isn't appreciated. Edit: To clarify, what this really comes down to is that I don't think patreon (or any company) should be going out of its way to encourage people who may not be financially stable to subscribe to recurring charges for things. That seems abusive, not empowering.
- Mz 10y ago
  I kind of agree with your basic point, but people with this issue don't solve it by "saving up" and some people will never be well off. It is inherently problematic to design a world where only The Haves can contribute. I am homeless. I have been treated vastly better by second hand stores and payday loan places than by any charity organization that has helped me because I am a customer and they need my money to pay their bills. If you do not allow for the possibility that the 99% can help pay for it, you also inherently cut them out in other critical areas, like having a voice in design and services. It is critical that we find ways to be less exclusive or the world will go to hell in a hand basket. Giving people a choice as to when they pay is an important detail. I agree with that point, though it isn't the only issue here. There are other issues. But their POV is inherently less problematic than yours. Treating poor people like they can't and shouldn't support the services they value is an excellent way to make sure the world continues to be designed for the comfort and convenience of the 1% and to hell with everyone else.
  - joshuamorton 10y ago
    >but people with this issue don't solve it by "saving up" and some people will never be well off. Agreed. Although at least for patreon, which in my experience is freemium, you aren't worrying about basic access. If we were talking about a newspaper subscription or internet access or an all access subscription to some content creator who only gave access to patrons that might be different, but "premium access to extra content a creator makes" is something that I don't spend money on. In an ad-free world that might change, but it also might not. Now, on the other hand, there's perhaps an honor in saying that I shouldn't be taking money from people who can't afford this. I think its difficult, because you either end up inadvertently taking advantage of people or alienating people, but I don't see a way to do neither. (I'm thinking of cigarettes and lottery tickets as corollaries here). >If you do not allow for the possibility that the 99% can help pay for it, you also inherently cut them out in other critical areas, like having a voice in design and services. I make two comments here. The first is that (again at least with patreon), I see it as an expressly premium service. My view might be wrong, but from that perspective its worth replacing "Patreon subscription" with "concierge drycleaning subscription", and I hope you wouldn't have a problem with me saying that as a general rule people really shouldn't be using a concierge drycleaning service if they are living paycheck to paycheck. The second is that this isn't (necessarily) a 99%/1% issue. My comment was specifically addressing people with no savings and who were living paycheck to paycheck. While that's a lot of people, its not 99% (at least in the US). That's not to say that you're overall point is wrong (classist design is bad except in specific circumstances), but if you're going to make that claim, I think its important to be clear about the classes.

Mz 10y ago

You let such people participate by designing systems where content producers can make money without getting money from every individual. I think you have a point, but perhaps you should submit it as a suggestion directly to Patreon. Second, I have tip jars so people can give once without making a monthly commitment. Monthly commitments are a serious burden for poor people. I intentionally list dollar amounts of $1, $3 and $5 to solicit small sums so people who can't afford more than $1 feel okay about giving $1. The jar is set up so you can then enter a quantity if you want to give more, for example 2 Tips at $5 to leave a total of $10. Most people who tip leave me $5 or more. But I do sometimes get $1. (This is really about 67 cents for me, but I don't want to treat other poor people like charity cases. I think that actively creates problems.)

protomyth 10y ago
> You let such people participate by designing systems where content producers can make money without getting money from every individual. > Monthly commitments are a serious burden for poor people. A lot of people don't want charity and are fine with paying their own share. What I am trying to say is simple, the timing of payment is often critical for people. $10 on day 1 of a month is not the same as $10 in the third week. Most utilities get this. It would be nice if people planning the future of paying for website, news, etc. get this through their head before they leave out part of the population. > This is really about 67 cents for me, but I don't want to treat other poor people like charity cases. I think that actively creates problems.) That is a good attitude because treating other poor people as charity cases often leads to contempt even if its subtle. A lot of poor people won't be that way later, but they will still have the memories.

joshuamorton 10y ago

My point is that if you're living paycheck to paycheck in such a way that when you get paid impacts when you can pay your expenses, you shouldn't be paying for things like patreon, you should be saving that money into a rainy day fund. That is, people living paycheck to paycheck aren't (and shouldn't be) the target audience of Patreon, because they really shouldn't be using Patreon. Or in other words, if "a $1 charge at the wrong time can be seriously problematic", you shouldn't be spending on patreon, you should be instead saving up that money until a $1 charge isn't problematic. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, but this problem is solvable by waiting a month to join the service, and paying each month with last month's funds. Also the snark isn't appreciated. Edit: To clarify, what this really comes down to is that I don't think patreon (or any company) should be going out of its way to encourage people who may not be financially stable to subscribe to recurring charges for things. That seems abusive, not empowering.

Mz 10y ago
I kind of agree with your basic point, but people with this issue don't solve it by "saving up" and some people will never be well off. It is inherently problematic to design a world where only The Haves can contribute. I am homeless. I have been treated vastly better by second hand stores and payday loan places than by any charity organization that has helped me because I am a customer and they need my money to pay their bills. If you do not allow for the possibility that the 99% can help pay for it, you also inherently cut them out in other critical areas, like having a voice in design and services. It is critical that we find ways to be less exclusive or the world will go to hell in a hand basket. Giving people a choice as to when they pay is an important detail. I agree with that point, though it isn't the only issue here. There are other issues. But their POV is inherently less problematic than yours. Treating poor people like they can't and shouldn't support the services they value is an excellent way to make sure the world continues to be designed for the comfort and convenience of the 1% and to hell with everyone else.
- joshuamorton 10y ago
  >but people with this issue don't solve it by "saving up" and some people will never be well off. Agreed. Although at least for patreon, which in my experience is freemium, you aren't worrying about basic access. If we were talking about a newspaper subscription or internet access or an all access subscription to some content creator who only gave access to patrons that might be different, but "premium access to extra content a creator makes" is something that I don't spend money on. In an ad-free world that might change, but it also might not. Now, on the other hand, there's perhaps an honor in saying that I shouldn't be taking money from people who can't afford this. I think its difficult, because you either end up inadvertently taking advantage of people or alienating people, but I don't see a way to do neither. (I'm thinking of cigarettes and lottery tickets as corollaries here). >If you do not allow for the possibility that the 99% can help pay for it, you also inherently cut them out in other critical areas, like having a voice in design and services. I make two comments here. The first is that (again at least with patreon), I see it as an expressly premium service. My view might be wrong, but from that perspective its worth replacing "Patreon subscription" with "concierge drycleaning subscription", and I hope you wouldn't have a problem with me saying that as a general rule people really shouldn't be using a concierge drycleaning service if they are living paycheck to paycheck. The second is that this isn't (necessarily) a 99%/1% issue. My comment was specifically addressing people with no savings and who were living paycheck to paycheck. While that's a lot of people, its not 99% (at least in the US). That's not to say that you're overall point is wrong (classist design is bad except in specific circumstances), but if you're going to make that claim, I think its important to be clear about the classes.