3 ms·
> we're collectively not willing to pay $1/day for what used to be called newspapers and magazines > The industry made clear it preferred to sell subscriptions
by beagle3 7y ago
> we're collectively not willing to pay $1/day for what used to be called newspapers and magazines
> The industry made clear it preferred to sell subscriptions but consumers collectively said no
That's not how I see it.
People were happy to pay for cable TV and get no ads. But ... cable channels were all too happy to take that payment AND the money from ads. Magazines and newspapers aren't any different, and neither is the internet.
I would be happy to pay $1/day, even twice as much, to not be tracked. There is no one I can pay that to, and there never was; and if such a thing would have existed, they would still likely start tracking at some point, as happened with cable TV and ads.
- scarejunba 7y agoThat's not anywhere near enough. The guy who can pay is worth way more than the guy who can't pay. The $1 is the arithmetic mean but the distribution isn't uniform.
- beagle3 7y agoAnd the end result is that the people who are not willing to pay $1/day are subsidizing me, the person willing to pay much more - because the currency is ads and tracking — of which I opt out as much as I can through uBO, uMatrix and a variety of other tools.
- m463 7y agoYou know, if craigslist charged for some of their ads, then actually had a tracking-free newsdesk... You could recreate the newspaper.