3 ms·

So what you are saying is: you would gladly pay a mandatory fee, thereby gating folks who cannot afford this fee from the content, rather than pay a donation of

So what you are saying is: you would gladly pay a mandatory fee, thereby gating folks who cannot afford this fee from the content, rather than pay a donation of any amount you wish and still allowing those who can't afford to pay to read the content? In the end, there is zero difference to you in either case, assuming you pay them the same in both, so you're literally gate-keeping news based on ability to pay because you think it's weird that they are for-profit and asking for donations.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> you would gladly pay a mandatory fee, thereby gating folks who cannot afford this fee from the content, rather than pay a donation of any amount you wish and still allowing those who can't afford to pay to read the content? It’s a tragedy of the commons. Paywalls force everyone who values the content (and can afford it) to contribute. (This also guarantee resources for the organisation, which reinforces the content quality.) Donations, however, risk subsidising free riders who could have paid but didn’t. There are also fewer checks donors have on a private company than a non-profit. There are plenty of quality journalism non-profits. There is no sane reason to donate to a private company over one of those groups.
- geofft 8y ago
  Paywalls seem to not actually be guaranteeing resources for journalism, in practice. If you mean "In the cases where paywalls work, ..." then sure. But that's exactly my point - what is a rational, profit-seeking, red-blooded, capitalist company to do when asking for donations is more likely to make money than selling goods and services? I don't understand what the risk of subsidizing free riders is. Is subsidizing free riders a bad thing? I don't understand why donors having fewer checks matters. Do donors have less power than customers of a paywall?

3 ms·

So what you are saying is: you would gladly pay a mandatory fee, thereby gating folks who cannot afford this fee from the content, rather than pay a donation of

by chris_mc 8y ago

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> you would gladly pay a mandatory fee, thereby gating folks who cannot afford this fee from the content, rather than pay a donation of any amount you wish and still allowing those who can't afford to pay to read the content? It’s a tragedy of the commons. Paywalls force everyone who values the content (and can afford it) to contribute. (This also guarantee resources for the organisation, which reinforces the content quality.) Donations, however, risk subsidising free riders who could have paid but didn’t. There are also fewer checks donors have on a private company than a non-profit. There are plenty of quality journalism non-profits. There is no sane reason to donate to a private company over one of those groups.
- geofft 8y ago
  Paywalls seem to not actually be guaranteeing resources for journalism, in practice. If you mean "In the cases where paywalls work, ..." then sure. But that's exactly my point - what is a rational, profit-seeking, red-blooded, capitalist company to do when asking for donations is more likely to make money than selling goods and services? I don't understand what the risk of subsidizing free riders is. Is subsidizing free riders a bad thing? I don't understand why donors having fewer checks matters. Do donors have less power than customers of a paywall?