5 ms·

> So, blockchain advertising Not blockchain advertising at all. Rather I nominate how much I want to spend each month and the browser keeps track of what sites

by imron 9y ago

> So, blockchain advertising Not blockchain advertising at all. Rather I nominate how much I want to spend each month and the browser keeps track of what sites I visit and pays them proportionally to the amount I visit or optionally how I feel like rewarding them. I feel this is a significantly better model than advertising.

DoreenMichele 9y ago
You can do that now. Go pay for subscriptions to established publications, like The New York Times, and be a Patreon supporter of independent small shops, like me and my web projects. But you probably won't, because every single time someone says they would support content if (insert some condition) they really mean "I just like bitching about the status quo like everyone else, but I have no plans to actually open my wallet. And if this new fangled thing actually gets off the ground, I won't support it either and will have some new excuse."* The people actually willing to vote with their wallet do that in the here and now. They don't just make empty promises to do so in some imaginary future that sounds highly unlikely to ever become reality. * This is a general principle. When people claim they would like to support anything at all if only... Most of the time, that basically means "I am lying as I have zero plans to put my money where my mouth is."
- blub 9y ago
  Everyone pays for what they value. To me that's e-mail a magazine, music, movies and sometimes apps. My list probably won't include any blogs, SaaS or most news sites. I don't see any contradiction, if those content creators can't get someone to pay for their content they will have go either give it away for free or stop producing. Option 1 is what I'm doing.
- mikro2nd 9y ago
  The trouble with this idea is that I don't WANT a subscription to (say) The NY Times. Perhaps two or three times a month there's an article there that I'd sort-of like to read. That does not justify the $5/month subscription they'd like (or however much it is). And if they put a stumbling block in my path (say, maybe, a paywall or some such) then I'll forego the article. Chances are I'll find it quite easily somewhere else anyway, since mostly they're just regurgitating press releases and wire feeds. There's a mismatch between the value they ask and the value they offer. It's a deep and wide gulf and results from wildly mismatched wants, needs and assumptions.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    I believe I have seen some publications that will take one time donations. I certainly do on my sites. Again, it isn't exactly raking me rich, so to speak. So I sincerely think this is primarily an excuse.
    - mikro2nd 9y ago
      I've seen a few that do offer a single-article fee, and that /might/ work -- except that the ones I've seen usually want a dollar or two which in my world is a disproportionate ask for the value offered -- and I'm not even sure that the value I end up receiving will match the value offered/promised until after the fact. The risk/reward ratio is just all wrong. (I don't mean to imply that this is the case for your work.) I do agree that it's frequently used as an excuse, though.
- imron 9y ago
  > You can do that now You really can't. There are no browsers I know of (besides brave) that make automated payments to content creators based on how much I visit their site. Not to mention I don't want a dozen different subscriptions to a dozen different services. And I don't want a subscription to the nytimes the washington post or the wsj, because I barely read those sites (I'm not from the US so much of their content is not that relevant to me) but I might be happy to pay $0.10 for article once in a blue moon that I do find interesting on those sites - but there's no way to do that. I do put my money where my mouth is and I do support people I think make valuable content, but current systems are not scalable to all the content I currently read on the web. Things like what Brave is doing solve that problem.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    I doubt Brave will ever be widely adopted from both sides. You are kind of saying you want some perfect solution from your end and content creators can starve until you get that. And I really, really don't believe we will ever have the kind of solution you say you would support. It would require everyone to have the same browser. It would require everyone to pay into that system. It would require all content producers to have an account with that same central entity to get their share. I think Basic Income is less far fetched and I have been quite vocal about how crazy I think that is.
    - imron 9y ago
      > You are kind of saying you want some perfect solution from your end and content creators can starve until you get that No I'm not. I already support content creators who create things that are valuable and that I enjoy. Unfortunately, current payment methods mean that this value has to cross a relatively high threshold before payment is feasible and so creators are often left with nothing. And yes, $1 is a high threshold - especially for something like a blog post. There aren't many articles on the web that I'd pay $1 to read. There are however many articles on the web I'd pay $0.02 to read - but that option isn't available. I'm not going to manually spend my time sending sites a dollar here and a dollar there. If however my browser can automate micropayments based on site usage and I can opt in for how much I'm prepared to pay per month in total, then that is something I'd pay for. > It would require everyone to have the same browser. No it wouldn't, it would just require all browsers to standardize on a given system. There is no technical reason other browsers couldn't implement automated payments using the Basic Attention Token (or something similar).
- CogitoCogito 9y ago
  Most of your posts in this thread seem to be complaining about people consuming your content without giving you any value in return. If this is the case, they why keep giving away your content for free?
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    I am speaking from firsthand experience here. And your reply is the same tired argument I hear every single time this comes up that boils down to "You need to either stop writing or accept that you have to do it for free." On the one hand, I am reluctant to tell you my reasons for my choices because it winds up being an opportunity for people to just make this about me and ignore the wider issue that is under discussion. It makes it all too easy for people to act like "it is just one dumb writer making stupid choices" and then pick apart everything I say to justify their existing position. On the other hand, perhaps it will be illuminating, though a single comment here can't do justice to years of me trying to find a good answer. I have considered other options, like trying to do an e-book or a subscription or something. I don't think that works. One of my sites has information for homeless people. They can't afford to pay me. Another has information on alternative health approaches. Ads in that space are notoriously terrible in terms of touting unproven cures that can be downright dangerous. That site has no ads, in part because I have no desire to be inadvertently hawking colloidal silver. These are problems I feel I have good solutions for. Everyone acts like they can't be solved. I think they can. People are endlessly critical of the fact that you can't trust a person telling you do X for your health if they are selling X or you can't trust your doctor when he is in the pocket of big pharmacy, etc. But if you try to just put out information and that's it, you can't monetize it. So we have this situation where serious problems are growing worse because you can't monetize an effective approach. People keep doing stuff that is making the problem worse because that is all the system supports. And maybe someday I will cave and throw in the towel and stop doing something I believe in and go do something that pays better, thou it makes me feel I am selling my soul. But so far I am not there yet. I would still like to try to make a difference putting out independent information about things that work. But I also would like to stop living hand to mouth.
    - 9y ago
- corey_moncure 9y ago
  I support lots of content. I would support lots more content if there were a button I click once and a penny (or so) magically teleports from my pocket into theirs. Maybe it really is about convenience. After all, many of us pay dearly when ads are downloaded over mobile networks, and in many cases the footprint of the ads greatly exceeds the content itself. I'd be overjoyed if that money magically made its way to content producers like you instead. So I put it back to you, where's my magic money teleporting button? Here are the requirements: - Can't take more than 5 seconds of my time (1 second for a pre-set donation amount) - Doesn't reveal my identity to anyone - Tallies up for easy computation of charitable donations for my tax year
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    Thank you for being a content supporter. I created a PayPal tip jar. That doesn't keep you anonymous, and it won't tally it up for you. Besides, I am not a charity, so I don't think giving me money qualifies for a tax deduction. It is the best I could figure out that somewhat closely fits the criteria I see over and over of 1. Accessible platform 2. Small payment amount 3. Low friction. I briefly considered trying to set up a cryptocurrency donate button as a means to allow anonymous payments but that seems complicated and unlikely to actually work in terms of converting to actual cash in my pocket.

by imron 9y ago

DoreenMichele 9y ago

You can do that now. Go pay for subscriptions to established publications, like The New York Times, and be a Patreon supporter of independent small shops, like me and my web projects. But you probably won't, because every single time someone says they would support content if (insert some condition) they really mean "I just like bitching about the status quo like everyone else, but I have no plans to actually open my wallet. And if this new fangled thing actually gets off the ground, I won't support it either and will have some new excuse."* The people actually willing to vote with their wallet do that in the here and now. They don't just make empty promises to do so in some imaginary future that sounds highly unlikely to ever become reality. * This is a general principle. When people claim they would like to support anything at all if only... Most of the time, that basically means "I am lying as I have zero plans to put my money where my mouth is."

blub 9y ago
Everyone pays for what they value. To me that's e-mail a magazine, music, movies and sometimes apps. My list probably won't include any blogs, SaaS or most news sites. I don't see any contradiction, if those content creators can't get someone to pay for their content they will have go either give it away for free or stop producing. Option 1 is what I'm doing.
mikro2nd 9y ago
The trouble with this idea is that I don't WANT a subscription to (say) The NY Times. Perhaps two or three times a month there's an article there that I'd sort-of like to read. That does not justify the $5/month subscription they'd like (or however much it is). And if they put a stumbling block in my path (say, maybe, a paywall or some such) then I'll forego the article. Chances are I'll find it quite easily somewhere else anyway, since mostly they're just regurgitating press releases and wire feeds. There's a mismatch between the value they ask and the value they offer. It's a deep and wide gulf and results from wildly mismatched wants, needs and assumptions.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  I believe I have seen some publications that will take one time donations. I certainly do on my sites. Again, it isn't exactly raking me rich, so to speak. So I sincerely think this is primarily an excuse.
  - mikro2nd 9y ago
    I've seen a few that do offer a single-article fee, and that /might/ work -- except that the ones I've seen usually want a dollar or two which in my world is a disproportionate ask for the value offered -- and I'm not even sure that the value I end up receiving will match the value offered/promised until after the fact. The risk/reward ratio is just all wrong. (I don't mean to imply that this is the case for your work.) I do agree that it's frequently used as an excuse, though.
imron 9y ago
> You can do that now You really can't. There are no browsers I know of (besides brave) that make automated payments to content creators based on how much I visit their site. Not to mention I don't want a dozen different subscriptions to a dozen different services. And I don't want a subscription to the nytimes the washington post or the wsj, because I barely read those sites (I'm not from the US so much of their content is not that relevant to me) but I might be happy to pay $0.10 for article once in a blue moon that I do find interesting on those sites - but there's no way to do that. I do put my money where my mouth is and I do support people I think make valuable content, but current systems are not scalable to all the content I currently read on the web. Things like what Brave is doing solve that problem.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  I doubt Brave will ever be widely adopted from both sides. You are kind of saying you want some perfect solution from your end and content creators can starve until you get that. And I really, really don't believe we will ever have the kind of solution you say you would support. It would require everyone to have the same browser. It would require everyone to pay into that system. It would require all content producers to have an account with that same central entity to get their share. I think Basic Income is less far fetched and I have been quite vocal about how crazy I think that is.
  - imron 9y ago
    > You are kind of saying you want some perfect solution from your end and content creators can starve until you get that No I'm not. I already support content creators who create things that are valuable and that I enjoy. Unfortunately, current payment methods mean that this value has to cross a relatively high threshold before payment is feasible and so creators are often left with nothing. And yes, $1 is a high threshold - especially for something like a blog post. There aren't many articles on the web that I'd pay $1 to read. There are however many articles on the web I'd pay $0.02 to read - but that option isn't available. I'm not going to manually spend my time sending sites a dollar here and a dollar there. If however my browser can automate micropayments based on site usage and I can opt in for how much I'm prepared to pay per month in total, then that is something I'd pay for. > It would require everyone to have the same browser. No it wouldn't, it would just require all browsers to standardize on a given system. There is no technical reason other browsers couldn't implement automated payments using the Basic Attention Token (or something similar).
CogitoCogito 9y ago
Most of your posts in this thread seem to be complaining about people consuming your content without giving you any value in return. If this is the case, they why keep giving away your content for free?
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  I am speaking from firsthand experience here. And your reply is the same tired argument I hear every single time this comes up that boils down to "You need to either stop writing or accept that you have to do it for free." On the one hand, I am reluctant to tell you my reasons for my choices because it winds up being an opportunity for people to just make this about me and ignore the wider issue that is under discussion. It makes it all too easy for people to act like "it is just one dumb writer making stupid choices" and then pick apart everything I say to justify their existing position. On the other hand, perhaps it will be illuminating, though a single comment here can't do justice to years of me trying to find a good answer. I have considered other options, like trying to do an e-book or a subscription or something. I don't think that works. One of my sites has information for homeless people. They can't afford to pay me. Another has information on alternative health approaches. Ads in that space are notoriously terrible in terms of touting unproven cures that can be downright dangerous. That site has no ads, in part because I have no desire to be inadvertently hawking colloidal silver. These are problems I feel I have good solutions for. Everyone acts like they can't be solved. I think they can. People are endlessly critical of the fact that you can't trust a person telling you do X for your health if they are selling X or you can't trust your doctor when he is in the pocket of big pharmacy, etc. But if you try to just put out information and that's it, you can't monetize it. So we have this situation where serious problems are growing worse because you can't monetize an effective approach. People keep doing stuff that is making the problem worse because that is all the system supports. And maybe someday I will cave and throw in the towel and stop doing something I believe in and go do something that pays better, thou it makes me feel I am selling my soul. But so far I am not there yet. I would still like to try to make a difference putting out independent information about things that work. But I also would like to stop living hand to mouth.
  - 9y ago
corey_moncure 9y ago
I support lots of content. I would support lots more content if there were a button I click once and a penny (or so) magically teleports from my pocket into theirs. Maybe it really is about convenience. After all, many of us pay dearly when ads are downloaded over mobile networks, and in many cases the footprint of the ads greatly exceeds the content itself. I'd be overjoyed if that money magically made its way to content producers like you instead. So I put it back to you, where's my magic money teleporting button? Here are the requirements: - Can't take more than 5 seconds of my time (1 second for a pre-set donation amount) - Doesn't reveal my identity to anyone - Tallies up for easy computation of charitable donations for my tax year
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  Thank you for being a content supporter. I created a PayPal tip jar. That doesn't keep you anonymous, and it won't tally it up for you. Besides, I am not a charity, so I don't think giving me money qualifies for a tax deduction. It is the best I could figure out that somewhat closely fits the criteria I see over and over of 1. Accessible platform 2. Small payment amount 3. Low friction. I briefly considered trying to set up a cryptocurrency donate button as a means to allow anonymous payments but that seems complicated and unlikely to actually work in terms of converting to actual cash in my pocket.