5 ms·
Well if that's what people are willing to pay for then let them have it. I don't see how it doesn't work. There is a cost if the articles isn't popular(which r
by dublinclontarf 16y ago
Well if that's what people are willing to pay for then let them have it. I don't see how it doesn't work.
There is a cost if the articles isn't popular(which rules submitting any old crap)
There is a cost of voting up articles, which rules out people with too much time(and not enough money) on their hands scewing the numbers.
Perhaps it hasn't worked before, but then no one has tried doing this with bitcoin, that singular ingredient makes a lot of formerly impossible things very achievable.
- motters 16y agoThat's the same argument that the tabloid newspapers use, and it doesn't work for them either. What readers end up with is low quality information, popular conspiracy theories, sensationalism, voyeurism, etc. What's really needed is some kind of system which sets up a virtuous cycle rather than a downward spiral.
- ppod 16y ago"What readers end up with is low quality information, popular conspiracy theories, sensationalism, voyeurism, etc." Readers end up with this because this is what readers want. We know this is what they want because it's what they pay for, which works just fine for tabloid newspapers.