4 ms·

The author is very wrong. I believe the current deluge of ads unseen since early 200X is the biggest proof that that "Internet economy" does not work, and will

The author is very wrong. I believe the current deluge of ads unseen since early 200X is the biggest proof that that "Internet economy" does not work, and will not work. If somebody does not want to give you money, why would they? People will never pay for what people now derisively call "content" nowadays. The only suggestion I have for the type of one man blogger enterprise complaining about nobody giving them money is to change occupation, and get a normal source of income.

pessimizer 6y ago
> People will never pay for what people now derisively call "content" nowadays. I wish there were a button I could push to take away money from the publishers of 3/4 of the articles I read on the web. edit: to head off any objections like "but you still read articles on the web so you must be getting some value," I have to state the obvious: I don't get to read articles before I read them. 3/4 of articles are the garbage I have to dig through to find something that meets the standard of mediocre. If it weren't for them, I could spend 3/4 less time reading articles, and 3/4 less bandwidth (so they're environmentally destructive, like bitcoin.)
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  And, that's assuming you got positive value on the remaining 1/4. Which is not always a given. In case of news publishing, quite often that 1/4 has negative information value, in the sense that after reading it, your beliefs will be wronger than they were before.
- sircastor 6y ago
  It took me a moment to understand that you didn’t mean that the money you take away wouldn’t necessarily be going to you. Sounds like we need a universal content rating system I compliment our initial payment system.
- lupire 6y ago
  You can take away future money by choosing better sites to access and building a list of good and bad sites to remember, or by adblocking and unblocking and paying on good sites.
  - pdimitar 6y ago
    Yet that doesn't guarantee a new owner changing the terms beneath your feet.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    If I weren't already choosing the best sites I could find, the number would be more like 99/100.
sofixa 6y ago
> I believe the current deluge of ads unseen since early 200X is the biggest proof that that "Internet economy" does not work, and will not work. Financial statements by Google, Facebook, Twitter and co would imply otherwise. > If somebody does not want to give you money, why would they? They wouldn't, and that's the point isn't to force them, it's to allow those that do want to give money, to be able to do so easily. If the website you're on is some random crap, you can usually tell quickly, well before the Coil extension kicks in and starts streaming payments; if on the other side spend 10 minutes reading an article or exploring a beautiful map of Westeros, then some cents trickle directly to the creator. > People will never pay for what people now derisively call "content" nowadays. Substack and Medium exist, showing that people can and do pay for "content" ( which doesn't mean a TikTok dance or SEO filler). > The only suggestion I have for the type of one man blogger enterprise complaining about nobody giving them money is to change occupation, and get a normal source of income. You do you.
mikehollinger 6y ago
> People will never pay for what people now derisively call "content" nowadays. Correct, but would you pay for better content? I started a subscription to the local business journal over the holidays. I'm genuinely glad I bought it. About once a week, I see some headline -first- there. For a few weeks, I thought they were repeating articles, but it turns out they were doing more in-depth reporting on a story as time progressed. How rare is that? By the time the headline shows up elsewhere, the biz journal is on their 2nd or 3rd story with more in-depth reporting. This is really, really nice. For local stuff (land development drama, businesses opening/closing, and general goings-on around town) things are relevant to me, because they're happening where I live/work/play. That is subtly different than me picking up a subscription to the New York Times or Washington Post to get reporting on national news which has to cater to a national or international audience.
- pdimitar 6y ago
  > would you pay for better content? Impossible to answer. I would absolutely pay for better content but (a) can't tell if it's really good before I pay and (b) I have no guarantee the creator's incentives won't shift and they will keep serving good content. I don't care about $5. I don't care about $100 even. But I can't be guaranteed that I get value for my money. It's always the same problem. Furthermore, even the mere fact of paying content creators already shifts their incentives so you're kinda spoiling the pool by entering it (another poster remarked that they could just make good content shortly before payday and then go idle). Not sure what's the solution but I mostly side with the "get a real job!" side of the argument even if it's far from the perfect response in this situation.

pessimizer 6y ago

> People will never pay for what people now derisively call "content" nowadays. I wish there were a button I could push to take away money from the publishers of 3/4 of the articles I read on the web. edit: to head off any objections like "but you still read articles on the web so you must be getting some value," I have to state the obvious: I don't get to read articles before I read them. 3/4 of articles are the garbage I have to dig through to find something that meets the standard of mediocre. If it weren't for them, I could spend 3/4 less time reading articles, and 3/4 less bandwidth (so they're environmentally destructive, like bitcoin.)

TeMPOraL 6y ago
And, that's assuming you got positive value on the remaining 1/4. Which is not always a given. In case of news publishing, quite often that 1/4 has negative information value, in the sense that after reading it, your beliefs will be wronger than they were before.
sircastor 6y ago
It took me a moment to understand that you didn’t mean that the money you take away wouldn’t necessarily be going to you. Sounds like we need a universal content rating system I compliment our initial payment system.
lupire 6y ago
You can take away future money by choosing better sites to access and building a list of good and bad sites to remember, or by adblocking and unblocking and paying on good sites.
- pdimitar 6y ago
  Yet that doesn't guarantee a new owner changing the terms beneath your feet.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  If I weren't already choosing the best sites I could find, the number would be more like 99/100.

sofixa 6y ago

> I believe the current deluge of ads unseen since early 200X is the biggest proof that that "Internet economy" does not work, and will not work. Financial statements by Google, Facebook, Twitter and co would imply otherwise. > If somebody does not want to give you money, why would they? They wouldn't, and that's the point isn't to force them, it's to allow those that do want to give money, to be able to do so easily. If the website you're on is some random crap, you can usually tell quickly, well before the Coil extension kicks in and starts streaming payments; if on the other side spend 10 minutes reading an article or exploring a beautiful map of Westeros, then some cents trickle directly to the creator. > People will never pay for what people now derisively call "content" nowadays. Substack and Medium exist, showing that people can and do pay for "content" ( which doesn't mean a TikTok dance or SEO filler). > The only suggestion I have for the type of one man blogger enterprise complaining about nobody giving them money is to change occupation, and get a normal source of income. You do you.

mikehollinger 6y ago

> People will never pay for what people now derisively call "content" nowadays. Correct, but would you pay for better content? I started a subscription to the local business journal over the holidays. I'm genuinely glad I bought it. About once a week, I see some headline -first- there. For a few weeks, I thought they were repeating articles, but it turns out they were doing more in-depth reporting on a story as time progressed. How rare is that? By the time the headline shows up elsewhere, the biz journal is on their 2nd or 3rd story with more in-depth reporting. This is really, really nice. For local stuff (land development drama, businesses opening/closing, and general goings-on around town) things are relevant to me, because they're happening where I live/work/play. That is subtly different than me picking up a subscription to the New York Times or Washington Post to get reporting on national news which has to cater to a national or international audience.

pdimitar 6y ago
> would you pay for better content? Impossible to answer. I would absolutely pay for better content but (a) can't tell if it's really good before I pay and (b) I have no guarantee the creator's incentives won't shift and they will keep serving good content. I don't care about $5. I don't care about $100 even. But I can't be guaranteed that I get value for my money. It's always the same problem. Furthermore, even the mere fact of paying content creators already shifts their incentives so you're kinda spoiling the pool by entering it (another poster remarked that they could just make good content shortly before payday and then go idle). Not sure what's the solution but I mostly side with the "get a real job!" side of the argument even if it's far from the perfect response in this situation.