4 ms·
There absolutely is. Medium is in that "one of X top sites" while blogs would be in the long tail. "Without having to buy X" just means you've yet learned noth
by nebabyte 9y ago
There absolutely is. Medium is in that "one of X top sites" while blogs would be in the long tail.
"Without having to buy X" just means you've yet learned nothing of the past. "Without having to buy" is just internet.org and (potentially, ultimately) a good tagline for trial subscriptions of zero rated content.
It's not the money (or "free" gratis) that matters, it's the control (or "free" libre).
People continuing to fundamentally not understand the rationale of controlling your own tech will be the single biggest contributor to "efforts to save the internet" failing, if you ask me.
- niftich 9y agoDue to network effects and the 'discovery' problem, content on the Web will likely continue to need content silos and content aggregators to expand reach. This alone isn't a problem -- or maybe it is, depending on your point-of-view, but isn't equivalent to the issues raised in the parent post. Equal access to pipes regardless of the nature of transmitted content -- net neutrality, or as you phrase, the libre aspect is a necessary prerequisite for mass-market and indie content to both have a chance to thrive -- and not just your home ISP's preferred partners. I get what you're saying, but both of them matter: the point is to get the same playing field, and not sidestep it with either a lower or higher price -- either zero-rating, or by charging more for a broader range of access.