2 ms·

Yea but they could afford it, ethically that sucks but they still had the money to spend. Have you ever wanted to buy something small and literally didn't have

• PavlovsCat 8y ago
  > they still had the money to spend. you did claim > the people that fall into the conversion group are generally wealthy now you say "yeah okay it sucks ethically", and shift the goal posts to something else entirely, from "wealth" to "they could buy it"? You're playing fast and loose with the exploitation, both financially and mentally, of others. You can't just ignore the costs of exploitation of people who buy shit they can't afford because their life sucks, and the sheer pollution of minds by advertisement, all the needlessly created "needs", too, because they can't be easily quantified. > Those people will never have access to micropayment content, because they can't afford it. So, social services in a country could confirm that a person is actually on welfare. If they are, sites can make certain things free for them, and/or others can donate a small share (10%?) of their micropayments to those who have nothing. That's not a fleshed out suggestion, just the first thing from the top off my head. Allow people to sign up to get a few free articles per month. Before you say it can't be done, show us you thought about it at all. You're also implying that the best or all the essential content would be micropayment content, which is a huge assumption.