3 ms·
Evidently some creators can make it work somehow, since there is more content than ever. It is difficult to convince people to pay more for stuff they're pract
by sandoooo 6y ago
Evidently some creators can make it work somehow, since there is more content than ever. It is difficult to convince people to pay more for stuff they're practically drowning in.
Maybe we should go in the opposite direction: tax the creators to decrease content generation in order to increase signal-to-noise on high-quality content. Or at least force marginally-profitable content to be released free or not at all.
- totetsu 6y agoI find a lot of the noise in contemporary content is calls to action(payment). Your idea might just ensure content that is mostly about trying to get people to pay for it survives.
- sandoooo 6y agoWhat it would do is put a price floor on content. People's willingness to pay, say, $5 instead of $1 for a piece of content is a strong filter, I'm pretty sure low-quality content that's purely CTA wouldn't survive.
- int_19h 6y agoWhy do you need state enforcement for such a filter? If you only want to see content that the author is asking $5+ for, that's a very simple filter to implement for any website that sells content (and many of them do just that).
- sandoooo 6y agoThe problem is that a lot of potentially viable content falls by default into the marginally-profitable category, where the small amount of utility they provide to the end-user is offset by the incessant user-monetization impulse. A price floor splits these marginal works into three categories: those that become free, those that die off, those that become viable at high margins. This seems to be a pretty great outcome for consumers.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]