3 ms·

There's a lot of negativity here about brave. But the fact is that the web desperately needs a new financial model, and as far as I can tell brave is a lot furt

There's a lot of negativity here about brave. But the fact is that the web desperately needs a new financial model, and as far as I can tell brave is a lot further along on that than any other project. Would anyone like to argue that the present web financial model is fine? Or would anyone like to point to someone else who has an alternative that would be workable and is anywhere near usable? And let met add one more point. Any workable alternative is not going to be perfect, so the fact one is not is not, at least alone, a reason to not use it. But again, let me ask all the brave critiques, what is your alternative? And by that I mean that can be used by your average user, not something only a techy can make work.

intopieces 8y ago
>The web desperately needs a new financial model I don’t agree that the web needs any financial model at all. Content creators want a financial model and advertisers wants to continue to be in business, but neither of those desires indicates a “need” for a single financial model for the web.
- woodandsteel 8y ago
  No, content creators don't want a financial model, they need one. If they don't get money from creating content they have to spend their time doing something else. And today they get that model from the centralized advertising model. Until someone comes up with a different financial model, that is where they will stay.
  - intopieces 8y ago
    Before the centralized advertising model, the web existed and had content. There are ways that people get paid without advertising, including donations and premium content subscriptions. The mother of a friend of mine lives in a low cost of living area and makes her entire living from writing gay BSDM anime fan fiction. She has more than 1k monthly subscribers, no ads. The web does not need attention merchants.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
drngdds 8y ago
Here's a crazy new financial model for you: make things and sell them for money. Snark aside, independent artists already do this with Patreon and digital music services.
- eredengrin 8y ago
  The problem is, do I really want to pay $1/week for that New York Times subscription if I only read articles from them once every 3 weeks? And the funny thing is, the inconvenience of subscribing is actually more of a deterrent to me than the money itself. If they publish a good article, I'd like to see them get paid for it so they can make more good articles, but I'd also not like to be mined for data. I also don't want to be inconvenienced trying to subscribe, because it is completely impractical to keep track of hundreds of individual subscriptions. Not sure why everyone is so negative about this here but it seems like a very useful idea.

intopieces 8y ago

>The web desperately needs a new financial model I don’t agree that the web needs any financial model at all. Content creators want a financial model and advertisers wants to continue to be in business, but neither of those desires indicates a “need” for a single financial model for the web.

woodandsteel 8y ago
No, content creators don't want a financial model, they need one. If they don't get money from creating content they have to spend their time doing something else. And today they get that model from the centralized advertising model. Until someone comes up with a different financial model, that is where they will stay.
- intopieces 8y ago
  Before the centralized advertising model, the web existed and had content. There are ways that people get paid without advertising, including donations and premium content subscriptions. The mother of a friend of mine lives in a low cost of living area and makes her entire living from writing gay BSDM anime fan fiction. She has more than 1k monthly subscribers, no ads. The web does not need attention merchants.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

drngdds 8y ago

Here's a crazy new financial model for you: make things and sell them for money. Snark aside, independent artists already do this with Patreon and digital music services.

eredengrin 8y ago
The problem is, do I really want to pay $1/week for that New York Times subscription if I only read articles from them once every 3 weeks? And the funny thing is, the inconvenience of subscribing is actually more of a deterrent to me than the money itself. If they publish a good article, I'd like to see them get paid for it so they can make more good articles, but I'd also not like to be mined for data. I also don't want to be inconvenienced trying to subscribe, because it is completely impractical to keep track of hundreds of individual subscriptions. Not sure why everyone is so negative about this here but it seems like a very useful idea.