> I'd be happy to spend $5-10 dollars doing that - I'm already spending $60 a month just for Internet access in the first place. If enough people sign on to tha

> I'd be happy to spend $5-10 dollars doing that - I'm already spending $60 a month just for Internet access in the first place. If enough people sign on to that, and enough creators can use that as a revenue model then it will provide a way to fund content without the need for advertising. I think herein lies the crux of the problem - the solution of a pay-on-visit system requires further curation by a populous that probably just isn't willing or eager to do so. Imagine such a solution a year down the line when it's fully implemented, and now people are complaining about death by a thousand papercuts, as every article suddenly begins to optimize for pay per view. We already have complaints about slideshows that load up fresh ads on 14 pages, 2 of which are actual ads instead of content; imagine how frustrating it would be to put a real dollar value on every day browsing of content. It will just encourage centralization more, imo, as agglomerating sites can take the hit and present content for free while individual content creators will struggle even more. Everyone hates advertising, but there are ways of doing it appropriately. The ethical considerations on advertising aside, the system itself provides a useful exchange for content creators and their audience. The problem lies in the third party here, the advertisers, and how much free reign they've been given over what an ad can do once it's loaded. The resale value of private information is probably worth more than the return on investment for the ad itself in the long run, and that's a major problem, because the audience loses out on privacy (and often security) as a result, and the content creator never sees the benefit of the resale value. The imbalance of power is too great here, and current regulatory attempts (Cookie banners) have no teeth and are ineffectual. I really don't think the answer for most people is an extra $10-$20 a month on micropayments. I think the natural conclusion of such a system is further entrenching Facebook/Google and other such social media giants. I think instead wrangling advertising into a system which more fairly compensates the content creator and respects user privacy is the right way to go, but at this point that's not happening without heavy intervention/regulation with some teeth to make it really hurt. Edit: Corrected "balance of power" to "imbalance of power"