3 ms·

I have a response to this comment which represents the result of 16 months of dedicated research, and will have a positive effect on both the discussion and als

by tylerl 7y ago

I have a response to this comment which represents the result of 16 months of dedicated research, and will have a positive effect on both the discussion and also the industry as a whole, provided my content gets the attention that it deserves. It'll cost you $15 to read it though. Research like this is expensive, and since you're the party who will benefit, you have a duty to pay me. If you refuse to pay me to read what I have to say, it means you hate the truth.

nabergh 7y ago
I doubt it. Why would I believe you?
prepend 7y ago
This is the problem with news and I don’t know the solution. It’s hard to trust a company that is spending lots of effort explaining how valuable and worthwhile they are. Many of these arguments boils down to “pay me or lose me.” While it’s true that good journalism costs money that doesn’t mean we should pay for mediocre and bad journalism. And it’s pretty hard for me to tell good from bad. This reminds me of site that when you fire visit them put up a window that asks you to subscribe. I don’t know if I want to subscribe so how would I be able to choose. But if a site relies on people subscribing without good judgment then that’s probably a sign that they don’t have a good feedback loop for value. Even the nytimes asks me to subscribe just to read for free. I’m not willing to do that to read the infrequent article from them and they are one of the world’s best. I used to subscribe but it was a chore to read regularly because of all the fluff. Unless there is a micropayment tip jar, I’ll continue to read only the journalism that is able to survive from non-targeted ads. Which, I think, works out ok for me as I don’t regret very frequently choosing the “lose me” option.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  > Unless there is a micropayment tip jar Blendle [1] tried this model. It did not work for them. They're now using an all you can eat model. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blendle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blendle
asdff 7y ago
What is this logic? There's zero push back when an author sells a book for $20. You want to read the wsj for free? Go to your library where you will also find that $20 book for free.

by tylerl 7y ago

nabergh 7y ago

I doubt it. Why would I believe you?

prepend 7y ago

This is the problem with news and I don’t know the solution. It’s hard to trust a company that is spending lots of effort explaining how valuable and worthwhile they are. Many of these arguments boils down to “pay me or lose me.” While it’s true that good journalism costs money that doesn’t mean we should pay for mediocre and bad journalism. And it’s pretty hard for me to tell good from bad. This reminds me of site that when you fire visit them put up a window that asks you to subscribe. I don’t know if I want to subscribe so how would I be able to choose. But if a site relies on people subscribing without good judgment then that’s probably a sign that they don’t have a good feedback loop for value. Even the nytimes asks me to subscribe just to read for free. I’m not willing to do that to read the infrequent article from them and they are one of the world’s best. I used to subscribe but it was a chore to read regularly because of all the fluff. Unless there is a micropayment tip jar, I’ll continue to read only the journalism that is able to survive from non-targeted ads. Which, I think, works out ok for me as I don’t regret very frequently choosing the “lose me” option.

Fnoord 7y ago
> Unless there is a micropayment tip jar Blendle [1] tried this model. It did not work for them. They're now using an all you can eat model. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blendle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blendle

asdff 7y ago

What is this logic? There's zero push back when an author sells a book for $20. You want to read the wsj for free? Go to your library where you will also find that $20 book for free.