5 ms·

For the [unannotated/unexplained/keep your bling out of my eyeballs] version you can find the PDF at https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/pubs/Riv97b.pdf https:/

by jws 9y ago

For the [unannotated/unexplained/keep your bling out of my eyeballs] version you can find the PDF at https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/pubs/Riv97b.pdf https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/pubs/Riv97b.pdf It's an interesting idea, and the paper is from 1997. That bodes well for it being patent free now. In section 7 I think they touch on the possible third rail, legality. In the US it would probably require opinions by 50 lawyers to even get started, then you would still have to watch out for any of 50 States Attorneys General to take a swipe at your business. I think back in 1997 the advertising model hadn't metastasized and people believed it could fund content. I'm probably not typical, but I run a gentle ad blocker. (It blocks the ad networks, but if a site has ads embedded in their actual content, with bytes served from their site, which they are responsible for, then I see the ad.) If a site asks me to turn it off that's ok, I leave and put them on my mental "don't visit" list. If the site asked for $0.001 instead, I would always pay. If they asked for $0.01, I think I would always pay, if we are talking about a quality journalistic article.

michaelbuckbee 9y ago
I'd wager that even at $0.01 per article that your time deciding whether or not to pay would "cost" significantly more than the actual payment.
- jws 9y ago
  Yes, I'd much rather authorize automatic payment to sites… say give the Springfield Shopper the right to pull $0.01 each time I read one of their articles until they hit a $1 limit, or up to $0.25 per week, or something like that. There needs to be a throttle to keep someone from looting me, but as long as they stay in their budget I'm happy.
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    The benefit of the lottery system from this post is that banks don't need to process every payment - only winning ones.
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  Worth saying and thinking about, but... Most people have sharp breaks below which they don't calculate; $0.01 would be below mine cause my time's surely at least ten times as valuable (haha) (even if two-thirds of my buys are duds.) I don't calculate whether to waste a sheet of paper writing down a note that might be useless, even though the cost is about 1 cent. So there's really only one calculation, "should I just buy everything I'm likely to actually read right away?"
  - jaymzcampbell 9y ago
    The sheet of paper is a nice analogy though I think people would see it as a sunk cost already and so "have" to use it. The $0.01 per article is a new transaction each and every time. Given how mindlessly I click around the web going down rabbit holes I can get through (albeit without really reading) a hundred+ pages an hour. It could easily start to add up.
    - IIAOPSW 9y ago
      >$0.01 per article > I can get through (albeit without really reading) a hundred+ pages an hour. So you'd be entertained for an hour at the cost of $1. Seems like a good deal.
      - visarga 9y ago
        If you are online for, say, 4 hours per day, that adds up to 120$/month, which is close to the actual price of the internet connection. So we're already paying $1/hour at the ISP, it would be a big deal to double the costs, and that is just for news. Add music, games and other staff that tends to cost money and it can become expensive. That would have the effect of making internet less used, not more.
        kobeya 9y ago
        Which is on par for, say, HBO or Showtime premium cable subscription, roughly. That’s a real comparable since those networks use their subscription fees to make original content that is highly valued. Would I pay twice as much for an Internet that is designed to inform me better rather than distract my attention further? Probably.
peteretep 9y ago
> the paper is from 1997 Thanks, I couldn't see that anywhere on the site itself

by jws 9y ago

michaelbuckbee 9y ago

I'd wager that even at $0.01 per article that your time deciding whether or not to pay would "cost" significantly more than the actual payment.

jws 9y ago
Yes, I'd much rather authorize automatic payment to sites… say give the Springfield Shopper the right to pull $0.01 each time I read one of their articles until they hit a $1 limit, or up to $0.25 per week, or something like that. There needs to be a throttle to keep someone from looting me, but as long as they stay in their budget I'm happy.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  The benefit of the lottery system from this post is that banks don't need to process every payment - only winning ones.
Nomentatus 9y ago
Worth saying and thinking about, but... Most people have sharp breaks below which they don't calculate; $0.01 would be below mine cause my time's surely at least ten times as valuable (haha) (even if two-thirds of my buys are duds.) I don't calculate whether to waste a sheet of paper writing down a note that might be useless, even though the cost is about 1 cent. So there's really only one calculation, "should I just buy everything I'm likely to actually read right away?"
- jaymzcampbell 9y ago
  The sheet of paper is a nice analogy though I think people would see it as a sunk cost already and so "have" to use it. The $0.01 per article is a new transaction each and every time. Given how mindlessly I click around the web going down rabbit holes I can get through (albeit without really reading) a hundred+ pages an hour. It could easily start to add up.
  - IIAOPSW 9y ago
    >$0.01 per article > I can get through (albeit without really reading) a hundred+ pages an hour. So you'd be entertained for an hour at the cost of $1. Seems like a good deal.
    - visarga 9y ago
      If you are online for, say, 4 hours per day, that adds up to 120$/month, which is close to the actual price of the internet connection. So we're already paying $1/hour at the ISP, it would be a big deal to double the costs, and that is just for news. Add music, games and other staff that tends to cost money and it can become expensive. That would have the effect of making internet less used, not more.
      - kobeya 9y ago
        Which is on par for, say, HBO or Showtime premium cable subscription, roughly. That’s a real comparable since those networks use their subscription fees to make original content that is highly valued. Would I pay twice as much for an Internet that is designed to inform me better rather than distract my attention further? Probably.

peteretep 9y ago

> the paper is from 1997 Thanks, I couldn't see that anywhere on the site itself