3 ms·

The problem right now is that outside of select few publications you're expected to pay for a low quality content.

by omega3 5y ago

CubsFan1060 5y ago
I actually agree. But I think the answer then is simply not paying for it, and not consuming it. Which is the interesting part to me. It's low quality, but people still want to read it for free.
- Zababa 5y ago
  To be fair they usually invest some time, energy and/or money into making sure that you want to read it. I don't want to pay for most news, but often I'm baited by an appealing headline. I'm not above being baited and fear of missing out, and they are exploiting this. If I'm preparing food in my house and people want a part of it, it would be weird to me. But if after preparing my food I use a complex system of fans to blow a delicious odor over my neighbours while having a beautiful table set up visible through my windows, and do this every single day, I can understand that they can't stay indifferent to the situation.
shusaku 5y ago
Or you pay but you still are bombarded by tracking.
dredmorbius 5y ago
You're missing the other case. Free content is provided not for informational value but for propaganda purposes. https://prospect.org/health/juul-taking-academic-corruption-to-new-level/ https://prospect.org/health/juul-taking-academic-corruption-... (HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27769978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27769978) And paid-up services still include ads. (Which have higher advertiser value simply because the audience is known and sufficiently affluent to pay for content.)
tsian2 5y ago
I think more people might part with their cash if they could fund the topics/proposals they were interested in. Something more like Gofundme and Twitch where people feel like they're directly paying for something to happen.
- snegu 5y ago
  That's really the idea behind Substack. You can subscribe to the journalists who investigate the issues you are interested in.

The problem right now is that outside of select few publications you're expected to pay for a low quality content.

by omega3 5y ago

The problem right now is that outside of select few publications you're expected to pay for a low quality content.

I actually agree. But I think the answer then is simply not paying for it, and not consuming it. Which is the interesting part to me. It's low quality, but people still want to read it for free.

Zababa 5y ago
To be fair they usually invest some time, energy and/or money into making sure that you want to read it. I don't want to pay for most news, but often I'm baited by an appealing headline. I'm not above being baited and fear of missing out, and they are exploiting this. If I'm preparing food in my house and people want a part of it, it would be weird to me. But if after preparing my food I use a complex system of fans to blow a delicious odor over my neighbours while having a beautiful table set up visible through my windows, and do this every single day, I can understand that they can't stay indifferent to the situation.

shusaku 5y ago

Or you pay but you still are bombarded by tracking.

dredmorbius 5y ago

You're missing the other case. Free content is provided not for informational value but for propaganda purposes. https://prospect.org/health/juul-taking-academic-corruption-to-new-level/ https://prospect.org/health/juul-taking-academic-corruption-... (HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27769978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27769978) And paid-up services still include ads. (Which have higher advertiser value simply because the audience is known and sufficiently affluent to pay for content.)

tsian2 5y ago

I think more people might part with their cash if they could fund the topics/proposals they were interested in. Something more like Gofundme and Twitch where people feel like they're directly paying for something to happen.

snegu 5y ago
That's really the idea behind Substack. You can subscribe to the journalists who investigate the issues you are interested in.