6 ms·

We need an alternative to free content on the web. I often read Nautilus and never pay them anything, it's wrong. Any SV-based disruptors interested in this? Th

by patkai 9y ago

We need an alternative to free content on the web. I often read Nautilus and never pay them anything, it's wrong. Any SV-based disruptors interested in this? These contributors are special, they contribute a lot to society and they are probably underpaid and under-appreciated.

robin_reala 9y ago
So pay them? $24/year for ad-free membership: http://nautil.us/primeuser http://nautil.us/primeuser
- RBerenguel 9y ago
  I agree, long time prime user, and have gotten some friends to join. Also donated a while ago. It’s dirt cheap for the quality of the issues. If you read one article online a month, it’s 2$ per article you give them and get all the digital editions as a bonus
  - LunaSea 9y ago
    If you really do read one article per month, $2 is nowhere close to being dirt cheap. Especially if you look at how many articles you read on average per month.
    - Fnoord 9y ago
      That's going to differ from person to person and financial situation to financial situation. Come to think of it, I'd actually be interested in a way to analyze my browsing history to tell me which sites I visit most. With pie charts and all. So I can be told which sites I apparently visit/read a lot. I bet I'll be surprised about a thing or two.
      - robin_reala 9y ago
        Mozilla had something like this, but it seems like it died a few years ago: https://blog.mozilla.org/labs/2012/10/about-profile-analyzing-data-in-firefox/ https://blog.mozilla.org/labs/2012/10/about-profile-analyzin...
    - RBerenguel 9y ago
      Given the quality and length of Nautilus' articles, $2 is a pretty good exchange for me, also 1 per month is the lowest baseline. Only in HN we probably see 3-4 of them per month, at the very least, but may not read all of them.
- ajmurmann 9y ago
  Speaking as a subscriber to Nautilus who also donated subscriptions to local schools: Subscribing to Nautilus is great but doesn't solve these problems for other publications. I get to my news sources primarily through HN. So for example I read about one or two articles from the Guardian and NYT because of that. I appreciate their great work, but I'm not going to get a full subscription from those magazines as well. I'd love to give back proportionally to what I consume, but don't know how.
  - _asummers 9y ago
    At least for Guardian, you have: https://contribute.theguardian.com/uk?countryGroup=us https://contribute.theguardian.com/uk?countryGroup=us
- codewritinfool 9y ago
  $12/year if you just get the digital version. I just signed up.
yoodenvranx 9y ago
I said it before and I will say it again: We need a non-profit, simple, and universally supported small-payment system which enables a user to easily donate 1-5$ to a random website without relying on Paypal or creditcards. Flattr was a good step in the right direction but unfortunately it never reached critical mass. If Google and Facebook combined their market force to introduce such a system then it would be an instant game changer when it comes to supporting websites. Nowadays I can use Facebook/Gmail to log into random webpages, why can't I also use those accounts for tipping?
- RealityCzech 9y ago
  Because those sites make their money on ads.
- MasterPI 9y ago
  Honest question: Wasn´t the original idea of cryptocurrencies to be able to do exactly that? Small transactions for the web.
  - Jaruzel 9y ago
    Relevant Link: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/bitcoin-fees-rising-high/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/bitcoin-fees-ris...
    - bitcoinmoney 9y ago
      Bitcoin isn't the only cryptocurrency
  - bitcoinmoney 9y ago
    Yes. I thought of someone creating a website to do this but then nautilus could just put an ethereum address on their website to accomplish this.
- rtpg 9y ago
  Serious question: what about PayPal?
ms013 9y ago
Why is an "SV-based disrupter" at all necessary? That's an absurd and bizarre question. Just pay them - you say you read it often, yet you don't pay. Say you read 6 articles there per year - that works out to a whole $4/article, or equivalent to one fancy coffee every two months. To defer instead to some "SV-based disrupter" to act as the person who will pay for it on your behalf seems exceptionally lazy on your part. Just pay for the things you benefit from. Constantly using services while hoping someone else will pay for them is why we can't have nice things that last. (And yes, I pay for it - I like the print version that shows up every so often, in addition to the articles I read online).
igravious 9y ago
I often read Nautilus too and never pay them anything. Moreover, I run an effective ad-blocker, uBlock Origin, so the little they may have derived from my visits that way evaporatwes. I am very conflicted. I love consuming quality journalism online. But there is no way I'd be able to subscribe to every site I visit – off the top of my head I regularly read The Register (UK), Economist (UK), The Atlantic (US), The Grauniad (UK), Nautilus (US), The Intercept_, and quite a few more … Maybe I should just disable ad-blocking on the quality news-media sites I visit. However online ads are just so _ugh_. They destroy the reading experience in a way print-media ads don't. They load in unusual places, they contain animations or audio, they track me (what the hell?), they may contain malware. It wasn't so bad back in the day but there came a point when it was just easier to install an ad-blocker and blanket ban them rather than to vet them on a site-by-site basis. It's why I like podcasts. Ads there are read out by the host. It's not jarring. They can even be fun they way someone like Bill Burr does it. They don't track me. It shouldn't be my job to figure out for online text-media how to package their advertising in a way that doesn't repel their audience. How about a consortium for advertising solely in quality news-media? Set standards. Feature the benevolent ad promise prominently. Communicate your standards. Have a way for ad-blockers to have a switch for Content R (Responsible Ads). If they can't make that happen then the only alternative would be some kind of way would be to bundle news media together (a la Spotify for diverse labels, and Netflix for diverse studios) and let me subscribe monthly to a swath of online titles. Kind of like how I get access to a whole host of journal publishers via my university's subscription channel. Otherwise … To re-iterate, I can't afford to pay a subscription to every news org I visit online. I won't disable my ad-blocker until quality news media and advertisers figure out together how to deliver appropriate, responsible, and vetted advertising alongside their quality content, just an static image in an appropriate place, not repeated with no fancy CSS or JS. Maybe (you have every right to argue) that if I can't afford to pay and won't disable my ad-blocker then I should be deprived of the content by a paywall. And I say, fair enough, if that's what the solution turns out to be – I'll go back to buying print media. Is there no halfway house by which my browsing/consuming could be subsidized by responsible advertising thus increasing readership? Are others in the same boat as me? I'd love to know. How can we make our voices heard?
- bonaldi 9y ago
newscracker 9y ago
Blendle [1], which is still in beta, tried solving this problem with micropayment, where there's a specific price per article based on different factors (including the publisher), and you decide whether you want to pay that or not. It even gives a small starting credit to try the service out. I tried it, but found that even at 25 cents or 15 cents each, things add up quite quickly. It also becomes awkward to decide whether to pay or not when skimming some articles and getting just a little bit out of it but not really enjoying it fully or appreciating it fully (most people, IMO, skim stuff on the web because we have attention deficit). [1]: https://launch.blendle.com https://launch.blendle.com
- aeorgnoieang 9y ago
  My problem with Blendle is that you have to go thru their site. That's an eminently understandable technical constraint, but still one that makes the site/service of little value to me given that I read mostly via a feed reader (and to whatever those items link).

by patkai 9y ago

robin_reala 9y ago

So pay them? $24/year for ad-free membership: http://nautil.us/primeuser http://nautil.us/primeuser

RBerenguel 9y ago
I agree, long time prime user, and have gotten some friends to join. Also donated a while ago. It’s dirt cheap for the quality of the issues. If you read one article online a month, it’s 2$ per article you give them and get all the digital editions as a bonus
- LunaSea 9y ago
  If you really do read one article per month, $2 is nowhere close to being dirt cheap. Especially if you look at how many articles you read on average per month.
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    That's going to differ from person to person and financial situation to financial situation. Come to think of it, I'd actually be interested in a way to analyze my browsing history to tell me which sites I visit most. With pie charts and all. So I can be told which sites I apparently visit/read a lot. I bet I'll be surprised about a thing or two.
    - robin_reala 9y ago
      Mozilla had something like this, but it seems like it died a few years ago: https://blog.mozilla.org/labs/2012/10/about-profile-analyzing-data-in-firefox/ https://blog.mozilla.org/labs/2012/10/about-profile-analyzin...
  - RBerenguel 9y ago
    Given the quality and length of Nautilus' articles, $2 is a pretty good exchange for me, also 1 per month is the lowest baseline. Only in HN we probably see 3-4 of them per month, at the very least, but may not read all of them.
ajmurmann 9y ago
Speaking as a subscriber to Nautilus who also donated subscriptions to local schools: Subscribing to Nautilus is great but doesn't solve these problems for other publications. I get to my news sources primarily through HN. So for example I read about one or two articles from the Guardian and NYT because of that. I appreciate their great work, but I'm not going to get a full subscription from those magazines as well. I'd love to give back proportionally to what I consume, but don't know how.
- _asummers 9y ago
  At least for Guardian, you have: https://contribute.theguardian.com/uk?countryGroup=us https://contribute.theguardian.com/uk?countryGroup=us
codewritinfool 9y ago
$12/year if you just get the digital version. I just signed up.

yoodenvranx 9y ago

I said it before and I will say it again: We need a non-profit, simple, and universally supported small-payment system which enables a user to easily donate 1-5$ to a random website without relying on Paypal or creditcards. Flattr was a good step in the right direction but unfortunately it never reached critical mass. If Google and Facebook combined their market force to introduce such a system then it would be an instant game changer when it comes to supporting websites. Nowadays I can use Facebook/Gmail to log into random webpages, why can't I also use those accounts for tipping?

RealityCzech 9y ago
Because those sites make their money on ads.
MasterPI 9y ago
Honest question: Wasn´t the original idea of cryptocurrencies to be able to do exactly that? Small transactions for the web.
- Jaruzel 9y ago
  Relevant Link: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/bitcoin-fees-rising-high/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/bitcoin-fees-ris...
  - bitcoinmoney 9y ago
    Bitcoin isn't the only cryptocurrency
- bitcoinmoney 9y ago
  Yes. I thought of someone creating a website to do this but then nautilus could just put an ethereum address on their website to accomplish this.
rtpg 9y ago
Serious question: what about PayPal?

ms013 9y ago

Why is an "SV-based disrupter" at all necessary? That's an absurd and bizarre question. Just pay them - you say you read it often, yet you don't pay. Say you read 6 articles there per year - that works out to a whole $4/article, or equivalent to one fancy coffee every two months. To defer instead to some "SV-based disrupter" to act as the person who will pay for it on your behalf seems exceptionally lazy on your part. Just pay for the things you benefit from. Constantly using services while hoping someone else will pay for them is why we can't have nice things that last. (And yes, I pay for it - I like the print version that shows up every so often, in addition to the articles I read online).

igravious 9y ago

I often read Nautilus too and never pay them anything. Moreover, I run an effective ad-blocker, uBlock Origin, so the little they may have derived from my visits that way evaporatwes. I am very conflicted. I love consuming quality journalism online. But there is no way I'd be able to subscribe to every site I visit – off the top of my head I regularly read The Register (UK), Economist (UK), The Atlantic (US), The Grauniad (UK), Nautilus (US), The Intercept_, and quite a few more … Maybe I should just disable ad-blocking on the quality news-media sites I visit. However online ads are just so _ugh_. They destroy the reading experience in a way print-media ads don't. They load in unusual places, they contain animations or audio, they track me (what the hell?), they may contain malware. It wasn't so bad back in the day but there came a point when it was just easier to install an ad-blocker and blanket ban them rather than to vet them on a site-by-site basis. It's why I like podcasts. Ads there are read out by the host. It's not jarring. They can even be fun they way someone like Bill Burr does it. They don't track me. It shouldn't be my job to figure out for online text-media how to package their advertising in a way that doesn't repel their audience. How about a consortium for advertising solely in quality news-media? Set standards. Feature the benevolent ad promise prominently. Communicate your standards. Have a way for ad-blockers to have a switch for Content R (Responsible Ads). If they can't make that happen then the only alternative would be some kind of way would be to bundle news media together (a la Spotify for diverse labels, and Netflix for diverse studios) and let me subscribe monthly to a swath of online titles. Kind of like how I get access to a whole host of journal publishers via my university's subscription channel. Otherwise … To re-iterate, I can't afford to pay a subscription to every news org I visit online. I won't disable my ad-blocker until quality news media and advertisers figure out together how to deliver appropriate, responsible, and vetted advertising alongside their quality content, just an static image in an appropriate place, not repeated with no fancy CSS or JS. Maybe (you have every right to argue) that if I can't afford to pay and won't disable my ad-blocker then I should be deprived of the content by a paywall. And I say, fair enough, if that's what the solution turns out to be – I'll go back to buying print media. Is there no halfway house by which my browsing/consuming could be subsidized by responsible advertising thus increasing readership? Are others in the same boat as me? I'd love to know. How can we make our voices heard?

bonaldi 9y ago

newscracker 9y ago

Blendle [1], which is still in beta, tried solving this problem with micropayment, where there's a specific price per article based on different factors (including the publisher), and you decide whether you want to pay that or not. It even gives a small starting credit to try the service out. I tried it, but found that even at 25 cents or 15 cents each, things add up quite quickly. It also becomes awkward to decide whether to pay or not when skimming some articles and getting just a little bit out of it but not really enjoying it fully or appreciating it fully (most people, IMO, skim stuff on the web because we have attention deficit). [1]: https://launch.blendle.com https://launch.blendle.com

aeorgnoieang 9y ago
My problem with Blendle is that you have to go thru their site. That's an eminently understandable technical constraint, but still one that makes the site/service of little value to me given that I read mostly via a feed reader (and to whatever those items link).