5 ms·

The only way to have free content is if the user is the product being sold. That's detrimental to both the user and to the society that they live in if it affec

The only way to have free content is if the user is the product being sold. That's detrimental to both the user and to the society that they live in if it affects how they make decisions. (Which is an integral part of news) I simply don't understand how anyone could be frustrated with a publication making it harder to get content for free. It's what we must accept if we don't want the government to provide the news.

tomc1985 7y ago
That attitude practically erases the entire foundation upon which the web was born and grew popular. There was an entire culture of gifting, information freedom, and passion projects and capitalism has swallowed it whole. These capitalist fucks can take their "user is the product" BS and shove it up their collective ass. The internet should belong to nerds, not moneypigs
headsoup 7y ago
This is because of the modern idea that we should be most interested in ourselves and what profit we can generate rather than what is good for our community (i.e. open, independent and shared journalism). Also, if the user is not to be the product, then the company must demonstrate the value of the product that we should be paying for. If the perceived value is not there, why would anyone want to pay?
LoSboccacc 7y ago
the point is not free Vs paid, the point is the bait and switch of presenting the content as free to crawlers and then wall it to users that's the annoying part.
door5 7y ago
> The only way to have free content is if the user is the product being sold. Or we could provide robust public funding, like the BBC > It's what we must accept if we don't want the government to provide the news. Public funding of media does not make it "government news". In fact, it's subject to far more scrutiny than private media. You would rather Jeff Bezos and friends control the news rather than a transparent & highly regulated independent publicly funded organization?
- chopin 7y ago
  Public funding makes it "government news" in Germany. And very expensive at that.
  - door5 7y ago
    There is not one single way to publicly fund media. Hell you could just leave the whole system as is as provide no strings attached grants or tax credits to all publishers. The point is, there is no technical solution to this, we need policy change.
  - sgift 7y ago
    Both of these sentences are factually wrong. There is no government news in Germany. And the Öffentlich-rechtlich (which program is, again, not controlled by the government) are not really expensive (The price is 17,50 for everything together: TV programs, radio programs, internet presence).
    - chopin 7y ago
      It is controlled by CDU and SPD who together form the government. Secondly afaik it is one of the best funded public broadcast worldwide.
      - anoncake 7y ago
        Please stop spreading misinformation. The Federal Constitutional Court decided in 2014 that no more than a third of the members of each Rundfunkrat can be chosen by the state or by parties. Also, not all party representatives are representatives of a governing party. The ZDF Fernsehrat has representatives of each party present in the Bundestag. Two thirds belong to other groups such as churches and unions. For the state-level Rundfunkrats, the federal government is obviously irrelevant.
        chopin 7y ago
        Name one Intendant (head of broadcaster) who is not member of a ruling party.
wolco 7y ago
It's a foolish strategy for mass media but makes sense for topic focused publications that usually are not mainstream or elite publication that try to exclude. You were always the product. Newspapers, magazines, year books, church bulletins have ads directed at you or a group you are part of. Certain people buy a publication for the ads. Free isn't the problem. Taking free away means less people read their paper, less talk about it, less get invited on cnn, less word of mouth. The need to move to clickbait titles increases. Remember these media sites do not create the news but present it in a digestable format and provide commentary.
- a_imho 7y ago
  Media sites behaving foolish and dying faster imo is a net win for the average folk, so all in all this is good news.
shostack 7y ago
You can have free content as a complement to another business, such as selling a product or service, directly to users.
sgift 7y ago
There's also the Guardians way: Ask, but don't block. Despite all the cries that this could never work Guardian had a positive revenue in their last yearly report. It depends on people doing the right thing, if they can afford it and if not cross-finance it with the people who can.
- inapis 7y ago
  > Guardian had a positive revenue in their last yearly report. Positive revenue for the first time since 1998. While admirable and noble, I find that this strategy is fraught with its own risks. Your company/product becomes fragile to financial headwinds in absence of a steady revenue.
- rchaud 7y ago
  Positive revenue, for the first time since 1998. I think there are more factors at play there than just the fact that they had an interstitial asking users to contribute or subscribe.
marssaxman 7y ago
We had lots of free content during the Internet's early years; people simply made things and gave them away for the pleasure of sharing. Generosity is as much a part of human nature as greed.
- BlackRing 7y ago
  There's nothing stopping people from continuing this either. There are myriad ways to promote your own creations. In fact there was a recently promoted site called https://1mb.site/ https://1mb.site/ which allowed a small free website. If you hotlink your images from your own https://imgur.com https://imgur.com account, you can have a relatively easy site.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    > There's nothing stopping people from continuing this either. Yes, there is. If you make it easier to monetize, people who would otherwise have shared their creations freely put them behind paywalls or force their visitors to subject themselves to advertisement.
    - BlackRing 7y ago
      I disagree. Technical ease has nothing to do with monetization and it's extremely easy to set up.
      - anoncake 7y ago
        Technical ease of monetization has nothing to do with monetization? Also, something technical can be extremely easy for the average HN reader and practically impossible for most people.
        BlackRing 7y ago
        Do you realize how easy it is to set up a facebook page, wordpress or blogger blog? Tons of non-technical people have done and continue to do this. This isn't about your average HN reader but the general public and they're competent enough to do these things by themselves, which has already been proven.

tomc1985 7y ago

That attitude practically erases the entire foundation upon which the web was born and grew popular. There was an entire culture of gifting, information freedom, and passion projects and capitalism has swallowed it whole. These capitalist fucks can take their "user is the product" BS and shove it up their collective ass. The internet should belong to nerds, not moneypigs

headsoup 7y ago

This is because of the modern idea that we should be most interested in ourselves and what profit we can generate rather than what is good for our community (i.e. open, independent and shared journalism). Also, if the user is not to be the product, then the company must demonstrate the value of the product that we should be paying for. If the perceived value is not there, why would anyone want to pay?

LoSboccacc 7y ago

the point is not free Vs paid, the point is the bait and switch of presenting the content as free to crawlers and then wall it to users that's the annoying part.

door5 7y ago

> The only way to have free content is if the user is the product being sold. Or we could provide robust public funding, like the BBC > It's what we must accept if we don't want the government to provide the news. Public funding of media does not make it "government news". In fact, it's subject to far more scrutiny than private media. You would rather Jeff Bezos and friends control the news rather than a transparent & highly regulated independent publicly funded organization?

chopin 7y ago
Public funding makes it "government news" in Germany. And very expensive at that.
- door5 7y ago
  There is not one single way to publicly fund media. Hell you could just leave the whole system as is as provide no strings attached grants or tax credits to all publishers. The point is, there is no technical solution to this, we need policy change.
- sgift 7y ago
  Both of these sentences are factually wrong. There is no government news in Germany. And the Öffentlich-rechtlich (which program is, again, not controlled by the government) are not really expensive (The price is 17,50 for everything together: TV programs, radio programs, internet presence).
  - chopin 7y ago
    It is controlled by CDU and SPD who together form the government. Secondly afaik it is one of the best funded public broadcast worldwide.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      Please stop spreading misinformation. The Federal Constitutional Court decided in 2014 that no more than a third of the members of each Rundfunkrat can be chosen by the state or by parties. Also, not all party representatives are representatives of a governing party. The ZDF Fernsehrat has representatives of each party present in the Bundestag. Two thirds belong to other groups such as churches and unions. For the state-level Rundfunkrats, the federal government is obviously irrelevant.
      - chopin 7y ago
        Name one Intendant (head of broadcaster) who is not member of a ruling party.

wolco 7y ago

It's a foolish strategy for mass media but makes sense for topic focused publications that usually are not mainstream or elite publication that try to exclude. You were always the product. Newspapers, magazines, year books, church bulletins have ads directed at you or a group you are part of. Certain people buy a publication for the ads. Free isn't the problem. Taking free away means less people read their paper, less talk about it, less get invited on cnn, less word of mouth. The need to move to clickbait titles increases. Remember these media sites do not create the news but present it in a digestable format and provide commentary.

a_imho 7y ago
Media sites behaving foolish and dying faster imo is a net win for the average folk, so all in all this is good news.

shostack 7y ago

You can have free content as a complement to another business, such as selling a product or service, directly to users.

sgift 7y ago

There's also the Guardians way: Ask, but don't block. Despite all the cries that this could never work Guardian had a positive revenue in their last yearly report. It depends on people doing the right thing, if they can afford it and if not cross-finance it with the people who can.

inapis 7y ago
> Guardian had a positive revenue in their last yearly report. Positive revenue for the first time since 1998. While admirable and noble, I find that this strategy is fraught with its own risks. Your company/product becomes fragile to financial headwinds in absence of a steady revenue.
rchaud 7y ago
Positive revenue, for the first time since 1998. I think there are more factors at play there than just the fact that they had an interstitial asking users to contribute or subscribe.

marssaxman 7y ago

We had lots of free content during the Internet's early years; people simply made things and gave them away for the pleasure of sharing. Generosity is as much a part of human nature as greed.

BlackRing 7y ago
There's nothing stopping people from continuing this either. There are myriad ways to promote your own creations. In fact there was a recently promoted site called https://1mb.site/ https://1mb.site/ which allowed a small free website. If you hotlink your images from your own https://imgur.com https://imgur.com account, you can have a relatively easy site.
- anoncake 7y ago
  > There's nothing stopping people from continuing this either. Yes, there is. If you make it easier to monetize, people who would otherwise have shared their creations freely put them behind paywalls or force their visitors to subject themselves to advertisement.
  - BlackRing 7y ago
    I disagree. Technical ease has nothing to do with monetization and it's extremely easy to set up.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      Technical ease of monetization has nothing to do with monetization? Also, something technical can be extremely easy for the average HN reader and practically impossible for most people.
      - BlackRing 7y ago
        Do you realize how easy it is to set up a facebook page, wordpress or blogger blog? Tons of non-technical people have done and continue to do this. This isn't about your average HN reader but the general public and they're competent enough to do these things by themselves, which has already been proven.