3 ms·

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

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.