5 ms·

I disagree. Don't pay for the news. I might pay for Netflix or HBO. If one is insufficiently entertaining, I won't. It makes sense for Netflix/HBO to compete o

by Yen 6y ago

I disagree. Don't pay for the news. I might pay for Netflix or HBO. If one is insufficiently entertaining, I won't. It makes sense for Netflix/HBO to compete on producing the most entertaining and addicting product, and I know that's exactly what I'm paying for. If news agencies are funded by having more subscribers, they'll also be incentivized to produce the most entertaining and addictive content. The value of news is not in telling me what I want to hear, nor you what you want to hear, it's in telling us what we need to hear but don't want to. You & I might both be high-minded enough to pay for news that bores us or offends us - but I hardly expect the typical person to do so. I don't have a better suggestion - but a per-article paywall, or even a subscription, leads to the same clickbait sensationalist rot that advertiser-supported news suffered.

egonschiele 6y ago
Great, so you are saying that NO news is preferable to the current situation.
- c22 6y ago
  Elsewhere in this thread you've claimed that demand for news is universal. With such high demand why do you fear a NO news situation? If all classical news outlets die surely something will rise up to fill this void? Sure, it may not look anything like what we currently have, but that's kind of the point.
  - egonschiele 6y ago
    This concept is not new, it's called Tragedy of the Commons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons). Basically, everyone wants something and no one wants to pay for it.
    - c22 6y ago
      I'm familiar with the trope, but "news" is not some finite resource we might accidentally use up, so that wouldn't seem to apply here. Perhaps no one is currently willing to pay for it because (a) they don't have to and (b) a lot of it is utter garbage. It doesn't stand that should these "options" disappear other ones wouldn't take their place, perhaps even ones worth paying for.
      - egonschiele 6y ago
        Terrific, you're welcome to not pay for the news and not read it then. Getting NO information must be the better option if what you are saying is true. People have spent their lives doing this job, but surely you know better.

by Yen 6y ago

egonschiele 6y ago

Great, so you are saying that NO news is preferable to the current situation.

c22 6y ago
Elsewhere in this thread you've claimed that demand for news is universal. With such high demand why do you fear a NO news situation? If all classical news outlets die surely something will rise up to fill this void? Sure, it may not look anything like what we currently have, but that's kind of the point.
- egonschiele 6y ago
  This concept is not new, it's called Tragedy of the Commons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons). Basically, everyone wants something and no one wants to pay for it.
  - c22 6y ago
    I'm familiar with the trope, but "news" is not some finite resource we might accidentally use up, so that wouldn't seem to apply here. Perhaps no one is currently willing to pay for it because (a) they don't have to and (b) a lot of it is utter garbage. It doesn't stand that should these "options" disappear other ones wouldn't take their place, perhaps even ones worth paying for.
    - egonschiele 6y ago
      Terrific, you're welcome to not pay for the news and not read it then. Getting NO information must be the better option if what you are saying is true. People have spent their lives doing this job, but surely you know better.