5 ms·

It could be that your blog content is of high quality, interesting and yet is worth no money at all. Some things just can't be "monetized". I can't think of an

by blub 9y ago

It could be that your blog content is of high quality, interesting and yet is worth no money at all. Some things just can't be "monetized". I can't think of any blog that I would pay to read... I pay for books.

DoreenMichele 9y ago
So, another convenient justification for not supporting internet content while absolutely consuming it regularly. How novel. /s
- blub 9y ago
  Well, you asked and I've answered. Like I said in another reply, I pay for what I value, but there is no guarantee that what I value includes a specific blog or website. Yes, maybe I'll read it and certainly I will block ads and tracking, because I don't like spyware nor malware. And if the content creator decides to block me or disappears I will read something else. Maybe if they had an easy way for me to pay them per article I would do it, but there is currently no such easy way that I know of. If my browser allowed me to pay websites somehow it would be ideal (and also a security nightmare). It may be harsh, but that's how it is. When I publish stuff I just give it away, I know I am somewhat privileged to be able to do this, however I see it as giving back to society in a small way.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    Maybe if they had an easy way for me to pay them per article I would do it, but there is currently no such easy way that I know of. That's what I keep hearing over and over. And that's why I created a PayPal tip jar and wrote up instructions for other people to follow. Most people have PayPal and you can leave as little as a dollar. It hasn't magically transformed my income and no one seems interested in adopting it. Everyone talks about wanting micro payments of less than a dollar and something that is less hassle than paying a tip via PayPal. I am at a point where I genuinely believe this is just an excuse and, no, they absolutely don't want to support it. The HN crowd in particular tends to make good money. They could afford to kick in a few bucks. My impression from web traffic is they use ad blockers at a very high percentage and their position is always that writers can write for free, simply to express themselves. This is a form of classism. Developers generally have comfortable incomes. If they blog, it is to express themselves and possibly enhance their professional life and make them more employable. I consistently hear that writers just basically should do it for free. That is the very definition of slave labor. This same crowd has nothing but terrible things to say about content mills, one of the few ways a writer can get paid for their writing consistently.
    - blub 9y ago
      To put it bluntly, online content creation is not a feasible income source. As you've discovered, ad-free content is almost impossible to sell. Ad-based content has a too big social cost, which we're only now starting to talk about. Society should support everyone to live a dignified life, and have a decent income. It shouldn't leave them to fight for an income and make deals with the devil to get it.
      - DoreenMichele 9y ago
        I don't think UBI makes sense. I also think positing that as the answer is essentially another dodge because it is some hand wavy imagined future, not something we can really act on in the here and now. Ads are paying the bills now. We don't like where that has taken us. But most people don't want to address the issue in the here and now of how else to cover the bills if not via ads. Every single discussion I have seen of this issue boils down to: 1. People want ads to go away. 2. They still want content to be free. 3. Content producers need to eat? Oh, well, not my problem. Sucks to be you.
        blub 9y ago
        1. Yes, ads need to go. 2. It doesn't matter much what people want, but what the new reality absent ads will be: there will be enough free content done by people who do it for the fun of it, as is the case now. Highest quality stuff will be available for pay, with some exceptions. Any other content will either disappear or be made free - the potential customers have decided it's not worthwhile enough to pay for it. I do not see any problem with the above, the human race doesn't suffer from a lack of digital content. It's a minor issue, that's on reason why people don't pay for it. 3. No one should have their living depend on creating stuff online, this is a major social failure. We, individual members of society pay our taxes so that everyone has some degree of social support; some of those taxes will be used to help out people in need until they get back on their feet and get a job. Ad-supported content creator is not a job, it is an accidental revenue stream that will likely disappear. UBI could be a solution, but that's not what I had in mind: affordable state-supported medical care, financial support for the unemployed, retraining and trainings paid by the unemployment office. This is reality right now in some European countries and it could be possible in the US.

by blub 9y ago

DoreenMichele 9y ago

So, another convenient justification for not supporting internet content while absolutely consuming it regularly. How novel. /s

blub 9y ago
Well, you asked and I've answered. Like I said in another reply, I pay for what I value, but there is no guarantee that what I value includes a specific blog or website. Yes, maybe I'll read it and certainly I will block ads and tracking, because I don't like spyware nor malware. And if the content creator decides to block me or disappears I will read something else. Maybe if they had an easy way for me to pay them per article I would do it, but there is currently no such easy way that I know of. If my browser allowed me to pay websites somehow it would be ideal (and also a security nightmare). It may be harsh, but that's how it is. When I publish stuff I just give it away, I know I am somewhat privileged to be able to do this, however I see it as giving back to society in a small way.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  Maybe if they had an easy way for me to pay them per article I would do it, but there is currently no such easy way that I know of. That's what I keep hearing over and over. And that's why I created a PayPal tip jar and wrote up instructions for other people to follow. Most people have PayPal and you can leave as little as a dollar. It hasn't magically transformed my income and no one seems interested in adopting it. Everyone talks about wanting micro payments of less than a dollar and something that is less hassle than paying a tip via PayPal. I am at a point where I genuinely believe this is just an excuse and, no, they absolutely don't want to support it. The HN crowd in particular tends to make good money. They could afford to kick in a few bucks. My impression from web traffic is they use ad blockers at a very high percentage and their position is always that writers can write for free, simply to express themselves. This is a form of classism. Developers generally have comfortable incomes. If they blog, it is to express themselves and possibly enhance their professional life and make them more employable. I consistently hear that writers just basically should do it for free. That is the very definition of slave labor. This same crowd has nothing but terrible things to say about content mills, one of the few ways a writer can get paid for their writing consistently.
  - blub 9y ago
    To put it bluntly, online content creation is not a feasible income source. As you've discovered, ad-free content is almost impossible to sell. Ad-based content has a too big social cost, which we're only now starting to talk about. Society should support everyone to live a dignified life, and have a decent income. It shouldn't leave them to fight for an income and make deals with the devil to get it.
    - DoreenMichele 9y ago
      I don't think UBI makes sense. I also think positing that as the answer is essentially another dodge because it is some hand wavy imagined future, not something we can really act on in the here and now. Ads are paying the bills now. We don't like where that has taken us. But most people don't want to address the issue in the here and now of how else to cover the bills if not via ads. Every single discussion I have seen of this issue boils down to: 1. People want ads to go away. 2. They still want content to be free. 3. Content producers need to eat? Oh, well, not my problem. Sucks to be you.
      - blub 9y ago
        1. Yes, ads need to go. 2. It doesn't matter much what people want, but what the new reality absent ads will be: there will be enough free content done by people who do it for the fun of it, as is the case now. Highest quality stuff will be available for pay, with some exceptions. Any other content will either disappear or be made free - the potential customers have decided it's not worthwhile enough to pay for it. I do not see any problem with the above, the human race doesn't suffer from a lack of digital content. It's a minor issue, that's on reason why people don't pay for it. 3. No one should have their living depend on creating stuff online, this is a major social failure. We, individual members of society pay our taxes so that everyone has some degree of social support; some of those taxes will be used to help out people in need until they get back on their feet and get a job. Ad-supported content creator is not a job, it is an accidental revenue stream that will likely disappear. UBI could be a solution, but that's not what I had in mind: affordable state-supported medical care, financial support for the unemployed, retraining and trainings paid by the unemployment office. This is reality right now in some European countries and it could be possible in the US.