2 ms·
I think the problem is still that it's friction. I may have a hundred million pageview credits, but it's still a gnawing "This will cost me one." It's still g
by hakfoo 7y ago
I think the problem is still that it's friction.
I may have a hundred million pageview credits, but it's still a gnawing "This will cost me one." It's still going to end with "we're outside the big network and want a seperate fee."
The simplest answer is to pull the consumer from the purchasing loop. Create a state endowment to pay artists and journalists a living wage, public-domain all the things, and then we can browse in peace, knowing our taxes paid for it.
- tom_mellior 7y agoI think a variant of the street performer protocol (later reinvented as "crowdfunding", minus the idea that once something is funded, it should be available to everyone) is the way to go. A newspaper could put up a widget saying "these are our monthly expenses, and here is how much in tips we have collected so far this month". People interested in keeping the paper going would tip. Or, well, maybe not, tragedy of the commons and everything. The important difference to "pay per view" being that you have less of the "this is going to cost me one" problem. You can see what the paper offers and then pay what you think is appropriate. It does seem to work for Wikipedia.
- DennisP 7y agoI'd be ok with that if it's not unaccountable bureaucrats deciding which artists and journalists get paid. Some variant of "liberal radicalism" might work out well: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/09/liberal-radicalism-mechanism-producing-public-goods.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/09/li...