4 ms·

I think the solution from a consumer perspective is per article 1-click micro-transactions. It needs to be easy, seamless and not require a new account for eac

I think the solution from a consumer perspective is per article 1-click micro-transactions. It needs to be easy, seamless and not require a new account for each site. "Click to pay 10¢ with NewsBuyer to read this article". Boom done.

pjc50 8y ago
My previous comment on the subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15592192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15592192 - "the problem with micropayments is microfraud"
- huffmsa 8y ago
  But eventually the wheat will separate from the chafe. If example.com is always clickbait / shit, eventually people will stop going there. NYC locals don't shop the tourist shops, because they've learned not to.
andai 8y ago
I agree, but I also agreed ten years ago...
- huffmsa 8y ago
  But 10 years ago the subscription services weren't feeling as much pressure to fix this issue. And since then we've had Patreon come into vogue, which almost all of the YouTube channels I encounter are using now. It gives support to "pay for content you enjoy". Only problem I see with it is that you have to leave the consumption platform to make the transaction happen.
cheschire 8y ago
There are transaction fees for most credit card purchases, and some of those fees have mandatory minimums (i.e. 2% plus 10 cents per transaction). This effectively prevents immediate charging, so you end up needing to provide one of two services: either a tab-based model where you effectively loan your consumer content and trust that they will pay you, or a top-up model where they have to pay into an account in advance and they can eat away at that balance slowly. The tab-based model obviously fails because you can't stop people from registering new accounts over and over and never paying you. The top-up balance model is the most likely scenario to work, but will require people paying a "large" amount of like $10 per transaction. Skype uses this model. So then you have your problem with the "new account for each site". Well, I guess there's some sort of linking you could do, where a payment provider company like Square would enter into an agreement with each content provider to take 10% per transaction or something. Then you would just use single-sign on from your payment provider to login to these content provider sites.
- huffmsa 8y ago
  Exactly what I had thought. Valve has basically done this for video games, except it's centralised. So this takes the "login with Facebook" idea to "purchase with [X]".
alias_neo 8y ago
I like this idea, but how does this work for articles that are crap? I often click links to things only to find they're click-bait, or just lacking in any real content, or just plain crap. Then there is the issue of the likes of tech-crunch who are abusing the GDPR rules and making you individually toggle ~250 check boxes to opt out of all the things that their global "off" button doesn't uncheck, those sites I choose to leave immediately and not visit again. Perhaps you could pay after a certain amount of time? But then there are many ways around paying for that. Perhaps they could reveal the article to you line-by-line and you have a time-restriction there? Or do we just suck it up, and pay for things regardless? My principles don't allow me to pay even a penny for something that is blatant and utter rubbish designed with no purpose other than to make / noise.
- huffmsa 8y ago
  If you accidentally pay for trash, you're not going to pay for it in the future, right? You'll be wary of that author / publication. If enough people stop paying that author, they go out of business. It shifts the onus to the content producer to make content people want to pay for, and not making the consumer decided between subscribing to a platform which is 50/50 good/bad.
  - alias_neo 8y ago
    Oh yes, certainly. I wonder though, how this works for the likes of Medium, where where is often good content, but by completely unrelated people, should it be up to me to know who I should and shouldn't pay to read? I see it would certainly make sites like this more useful, those that curate content based on public opinion.
justtopost 8y ago
Only if i get 20min to get a clickbait refund.
- huffmsa 8y ago
  Always viable. Google allows it for app purchases. Of course if the cost is low enough and you realize your money has been wasted, you simply never purchase from that author again, and if enough other users follow suit, they'll go out if business.
discobean 8y ago
This would be ok if the articles were worth a 10c read, but I feel like with the majority of articles being of low quality, paying for an article would be a gamble that rarely pays off and I'd "just stop trying".
- rorykoehler 8y ago
  Companies could use the popular below the fold design to unlock the article for 10c. This way you can read the first paragraph or two to decide if it's worth it.

pjc50 8y ago

My previous comment on the subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15592192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15592192 - "the problem with micropayments is microfraud"

huffmsa 8y ago
But eventually the wheat will separate from the chafe. If example.com is always clickbait / shit, eventually people will stop going there. NYC locals don't shop the tourist shops, because they've learned not to.

andai 8y ago

I agree, but I also agreed ten years ago...

huffmsa 8y ago
But 10 years ago the subscription services weren't feeling as much pressure to fix this issue. And since then we've had Patreon come into vogue, which almost all of the YouTube channels I encounter are using now. It gives support to "pay for content you enjoy". Only problem I see with it is that you have to leave the consumption platform to make the transaction happen.

cheschire 8y ago

There are transaction fees for most credit card purchases, and some of those fees have mandatory minimums (i.e. 2% plus 10 cents per transaction). This effectively prevents immediate charging, so you end up needing to provide one of two services: either a tab-based model where you effectively loan your consumer content and trust that they will pay you, or a top-up model where they have to pay into an account in advance and they can eat away at that balance slowly. The tab-based model obviously fails because you can't stop people from registering new accounts over and over and never paying you. The top-up balance model is the most likely scenario to work, but will require people paying a "large" amount of like $10 per transaction. Skype uses this model. So then you have your problem with the "new account for each site". Well, I guess there's some sort of linking you could do, where a payment provider company like Square would enter into an agreement with each content provider to take 10% per transaction or something. Then you would just use single-sign on from your payment provider to login to these content provider sites.

huffmsa 8y ago
Exactly what I had thought. Valve has basically done this for video games, except it's centralised. So this takes the "login with Facebook" idea to "purchase with [X]".

alias_neo 8y ago

I like this idea, but how does this work for articles that are crap? I often click links to things only to find they're click-bait, or just lacking in any real content, or just plain crap. Then there is the issue of the likes of tech-crunch who are abusing the GDPR rules and making you individually toggle ~250 check boxes to opt out of all the things that their global "off" button doesn't uncheck, those sites I choose to leave immediately and not visit again. Perhaps you could pay after a certain amount of time? But then there are many ways around paying for that. Perhaps they could reveal the article to you line-by-line and you have a time-restriction there? Or do we just suck it up, and pay for things regardless? My principles don't allow me to pay even a penny for something that is blatant and utter rubbish designed with no purpose other than to make / noise.

huffmsa 8y ago
If you accidentally pay for trash, you're not going to pay for it in the future, right? You'll be wary of that author / publication. If enough people stop paying that author, they go out of business. It shifts the onus to the content producer to make content people want to pay for, and not making the consumer decided between subscribing to a platform which is 50/50 good/bad.
- alias_neo 8y ago
  Oh yes, certainly. I wonder though, how this works for the likes of Medium, where where is often good content, but by completely unrelated people, should it be up to me to know who I should and shouldn't pay to read? I see it would certainly make sites like this more useful, those that curate content based on public opinion.

justtopost 8y ago

Only if i get 20min to get a clickbait refund.

huffmsa 8y ago
Always viable. Google allows it for app purchases. Of course if the cost is low enough and you realize your money has been wasted, you simply never purchase from that author again, and if enough other users follow suit, they'll go out if business.

discobean 8y ago

This would be ok if the articles were worth a 10c read, but I feel like with the majority of articles being of low quality, paying for an article would be a gamble that rarely pays off and I'd "just stop trying".

rorykoehler 8y ago
Companies could use the popular below the fold design to unlock the article for 10c. This way you can read the first paragraph or two to decide if it's worth it.