4 ms·
If a business has to beg customers to pay, maybe they should step back and re-evaluate the value that they are purporting to offer and the methods with which th
by daenz 6y ago
If a business has to beg customers to pay, maybe they should step back and re-evaluate the value that they are purporting to offer and the methods with which they are offering it.
- egonschiele 6y agoYou are so right. Charities have to beg customers to pay too. Maybe they should step back and re-evaluate. Actually, here's an even better idea -- let's just kill the poor. Think of how much money that would save.
- sukilot 6y agoThe poor are needed to do the work.
- cercatrova 6y agoThis is a bad faith argument, based on a slippery slope. Your other comments seem to be similar. Familiarize yourself with HN rules before commenting.
- egonschiele 6y agoLet me know which other comments you have an issue with.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoIt's an odd problem. What newspapers have done historically with respect to reporting on local politics is almost unquestionably a social good. It's also inarguable that they've done so as businesses, funded by advertising for the most part. That has worked because people wanted to pay a little bit (each) to read them and advertisers were willing to pay a lot (in aggregate) to reach those readers. So what's changed? Advertisers are less interested in the medium itself. Meanwhile, readers have built a very low estimate of the value of journalism. But what is that estimate based on? Suppose that as citizens we all accepted that local political reporting was absolutely vital to our society, and that without it we would face an unmitigated wave of corruption and worse. How much would we each pay to avoid that? I understand that people don't accept that news journalism is that vital, and that this affects their estimate of the value. But are they correct?