3 ms·

What is with the huge percentage of users here that think this sort of thing is okay?

by na85 9y ago

fiddlerwoaroof 9y ago
I think it’s ok because I think it’s unreasonable to expect site owners to provide content free of charge: people hate paywalls and ads/tracking because they prevent access to content, add unwanted content and/or infringe on the user’s privacy. An automatic cryptocurrency micropayment system (like the Brave browser’s BAT system, if I understand correctly) could be designed to address some or all of these problems without making it impossible to monetize your content.
- chii 9y ago
  > people hate paywalls .... An automatic cryptocurrency micropayment system and yet they are willing to expend more electricity, at a huge inefficiency, to produce vastly less monetary value to the site. I would rather just pay the 1cent.
  - zdkl 9y ago
    Yes the inefficiency in mining coins and the hefty fees impact the game theoretic value of this method but it doesn't mean there is no value in that form of compensation. If the choice is between a barren wasteland of providers removing useful content from open access or waiting on 1% of users to subsidise the rest or giving the option to users to pay while they're accessing content, I'll take some form of choice to put my hardware to use for a while if thay eventually pays for hosting and a couple meals to the admin. I think we agree that this does not work at scale but for small operators and some niches, I'm convinced this is a safe option for the siteowner not to have to mess with a payment processor and personnaly identifiable information. This last point especially might become more important with the EU regulations on the horizon.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      The inefficiency makes it too unprofitable to even bother with it for small actors. What am I going to do with the fraction of a fraction of a cent my homepage mines over one year?
      - zdkl 9y ago
        I may be in a minority, but I believe the incentives of this method are "better" for the spirit of the open web, and I for one am prepared for the low revenue if it means this ideology may perdure. The motivation is not to use *coins for their own sake, but that the alternative is getting scarier everyday.
        TeMPOraL 9y ago
        Yeah, the incentives are better, to be sure. Personally, I just don't like the implementation. I see current cryptocurrencies as a huge and completely unnecessary waste of energy. I don't like waste, but the concept of paying with computational resources isn't bad per se, IMO, and definitely better than paying with my attention (and then again with the data the site collected on me). [0] - in the days of energy crisis, when we can't even switch to safer sources fast enough not to risk cooking ourselves on this planet.
- na85 9y ago
  So in other words, site owners are entitled to an income? Pish posh. Not everything on the web is worth paying for. The content that is worth money will draw subscribers, and content producers are going to just have to live up to the fact that not all of what they produce is worth paying for.
  - jthewriter 9y ago
    Amen. If people aren't willing to pay for your content, then it's literally not worth paying for. You're still welcome to create it and distribute it for free. If you don't care that much, others probably don't either and we'll all be better off with less crap content swirling around out there. The ad model has left us mired in a suffocating heap of crap content people claim has "value" because they're able to hack the system and get ad revenue from it. But in reality the content is secondary and just an excuse for the ads.
- godshatter 9y ago
  Well, I'm entitled to use my processors as I see fit, which means not visiting sites that try to run bitcoin miners. It's not my responsibility to make sure some website I go to gets monetized. It's especially galling to me because I spent many formative years providing content to people for free, just because I wanted to and because I had an interest in it. In my personal opinion, all the people trying to ride the wave of monetizing their content should go run off and jump on that "new thing", whatever it is, as long as it's not the web.
mynewtb 9y ago
Because the bitcoin bubble has expanded so much and tech people like to think they should all be millionaires now. Greed.

What is with the huge percentage of users here that think this sort of thing is okay?

by na85 9y ago

What is with the huge percentage of users here that think this sort of thing is okay?

I think it’s ok because I think it’s unreasonable to expect site owners to provide content free of charge: people hate paywalls and ads/tracking because they prevent access to content, add unwanted content and/or infringe on the user’s privacy. An automatic cryptocurrency micropayment system (like the Brave browser’s BAT system, if I understand correctly) could be designed to address some or all of these problems without making it impossible to monetize your content.

chii 9y ago
> people hate paywalls .... An automatic cryptocurrency micropayment system and yet they are willing to expend more electricity, at a huge inefficiency, to produce vastly less monetary value to the site. I would rather just pay the 1cent.
- zdkl 9y ago
  Yes the inefficiency in mining coins and the hefty fees impact the game theoretic value of this method but it doesn't mean there is no value in that form of compensation. If the choice is between a barren wasteland of providers removing useful content from open access or waiting on 1% of users to subsidise the rest or giving the option to users to pay while they're accessing content, I'll take some form of choice to put my hardware to use for a while if thay eventually pays for hosting and a couple meals to the admin. I think we agree that this does not work at scale but for small operators and some niches, I'm convinced this is a safe option for the siteowner not to have to mess with a payment processor and personnaly identifiable information. This last point especially might become more important with the EU regulations on the horizon.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    The inefficiency makes it too unprofitable to even bother with it for small actors. What am I going to do with the fraction of a fraction of a cent my homepage mines over one year?
    - zdkl 9y ago
      I may be in a minority, but I believe the incentives of this method are "better" for the spirit of the open web, and I for one am prepared for the low revenue if it means this ideology may perdure. The motivation is not to use *coins for their own sake, but that the alternative is getting scarier everyday.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        Yeah, the incentives are better, to be sure. Personally, I just don't like the implementation. I see current cryptocurrencies as a huge and completely unnecessary waste of energy. I don't like waste, but the concept of paying with computational resources isn't bad per se, IMO, and definitely better than paying with my attention (and then again with the data the site collected on me). [0] - in the days of energy crisis, when we can't even switch to safer sources fast enough not to risk cooking ourselves on this planet.
na85 9y ago
So in other words, site owners are entitled to an income? Pish posh. Not everything on the web is worth paying for. The content that is worth money will draw subscribers, and content producers are going to just have to live up to the fact that not all of what they produce is worth paying for.
- jthewriter 9y ago
  Amen. If people aren't willing to pay for your content, then it's literally not worth paying for. You're still welcome to create it and distribute it for free. If you don't care that much, others probably don't either and we'll all be better off with less crap content swirling around out there. The ad model has left us mired in a suffocating heap of crap content people claim has "value" because they're able to hack the system and get ad revenue from it. But in reality the content is secondary and just an excuse for the ads.
godshatter 9y ago
Well, I'm entitled to use my processors as I see fit, which means not visiting sites that try to run bitcoin miners. It's not my responsibility to make sure some website I go to gets monetized. It's especially galling to me because I spent many formative years providing content to people for free, just because I wanted to and because I had an interest in it. In my personal opinion, all the people trying to ride the wave of monetizing their content should go run off and jump on that "new thing", whatever it is, as long as it's not the web.

mynewtb 9y ago

Because the bitcoin bubble has expanded so much and tech people like to think they should all be millionaires now. Greed.