3 ms·

>> Why subscribe to several newspapers (where you don't care for 90% of the content), if you could subscribe to the exact 13 authors that write about stuff you

>> Why subscribe to several newspapers (where you don't care for 90% of the content), if you could subscribe to the exact 13 authors that write about stuff you like, and never miss any of their articles, and never need to look through 30 pages of crap to find that? By doing this with news people tend to create their own echo chambers and I don't know if this is a good thing. Especially with news I try to read different sources and opinions about a topic before I can form my own view.

ajuc 8y ago
Yes, that's a valid concern, but expecting people to subscribe to newspapers they disagree with is IMHO too much. I may occasionally buy a newspaper I disagree with. I won't subscribe to it. Especially when polarization of the society is so strong that half of that press is actively insulting the supporters of "the other side". For example - I've read a few issues of "Do Rzeczy" - pro-government press in Poland that my father subscribes to. I've learnt that I'm a traitor, a communist, a thief, and a deviant, because I disagree with the government and participate in demonstrations. I have very little desire to read such news on a daily basis and even less to pay for it. I'm more likely to read articles by Łukasz Warzecha (who is also writing for that newspaper, but at least usually doesn't insult his political enemies, and tries to stop the more absurd witch hunts they do), than to read the whole thing on a regular basis. So, in my opinion - in this case the twitch subscription model is better, too. There is a niche for "less polarizing disagreement" and authors could build their personal brands basing on that (just like some build theirs by being the most controversial ones). There's the issue of discoverability, but news aggregators solve this better, than traditional press.

3 ms·

>> Why subscribe to several newspapers (where you don't care for 90% of the content), if you could subscribe to the exact 13 authors that write about stuff you

by das_keyboard 8y ago

ajuc 8y ago
Yes, that's a valid concern, but expecting people to subscribe to newspapers they disagree with is IMHO too much. I may occasionally buy a newspaper I disagree with. I won't subscribe to it. Especially when polarization of the society is so strong that half of that press is actively insulting the supporters of "the other side". For example - I've read a few issues of "Do Rzeczy" - pro-government press in Poland that my father subscribes to. I've learnt that I'm a traitor, a communist, a thief, and a deviant, because I disagree with the government and participate in demonstrations. I have very little desire to read such news on a daily basis and even less to pay for it. I'm more likely to read articles by Łukasz Warzecha (who is also writing for that newspaper, but at least usually doesn't insult his political enemies, and tries to stop the more absurd witch hunts they do), than to read the whole thing on a regular basis. So, in my opinion - in this case the twitch subscription model is better, too. There is a niche for "less polarizing disagreement" and authors could build their personal brands basing on that (just like some build theirs by being the most controversial ones). There's the issue of discoverability, but news aggregators solve this better, than traditional press.