4 ms·

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.
      - Erwin 9y ago
        At $120/month you've read 12,000 pages of good enough quality to charge for. If you were to buy 40 new 300-page fiction books you could spend $400; if you were to buy 40 new professional books you could spend $1000.
    - Nomentatus 9y ago
      1c per article not pages - that's 10c an hour for me.
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    I'm green enough that the real cost is not a sunk cost for me. I actually value the damage to the environment more than the damage to my wallet - so I fold paper used on one side to make "new" paper; halving if that helps, down to a 2 by 4 inch slip. (Spending my current time.) So for me the 1c already spent is the least of it (re paper.) But yeah, I'm a fifty tab guy, so I'd rather have the fee kick in if I'm on the page more than sixty seconds. That's fair. It would piss me off to pay even a cent for crap or subtle clickbait.

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.
    - Erwin 9y ago
      At $120/month you've read 12,000 pages of good enough quality to charge for. If you were to buy 40 new 300-page fiction books you could spend $400; if you were to buy 40 new professional books you could spend $1000.
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    1c per article not pages - that's 10c an hour for me.
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  I'm green enough that the real cost is not a sunk cost for me. I actually value the damage to the environment more than the damage to my wallet - so I fold paper used on one side to make "new" paper; halving if that helps, down to a 2 by 4 inch slip. (Spending my current time.) So for me the 1c already spent is the least of it (re paper.) But yeah, I'm a fifty tab guy, so I'd rather have the fee kick in if I'm on the page more than sixty seconds. That's fair. It would piss me off to pay even a cent for crap or subtle clickbait.