5 ms·

I'd simply prefer if all services became paid.

afavour 5y ago
It’s undeniable, though, that such a limitation would shut off access for people who can’t afford it. You see it today with newspaper paywalls and the like. I suspect the vast majority of us in HN would have no problem paying for most of these services but I’m not sure how I feel about us making those choices on behalf of those that can’t.
- diamond_hands 5y ago
  And we wonder why people seem more uninformed than ever...
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  If its vital enough that everyone must have access, then it should be considered a public utility like water, or something the government should subsidize like food stamps. I'd be happy for my tax dollars to go towards a well-moderated social media platform that everyone can access and by design doesn't do shit like optimize "engagement" or whatever monetizing nonsense current platforms do to try and make a buck.
- leokennis 5y ago
  How about a model like Wikipedia? It’s free. If you find it useful and can afford it please donate. If not it’s still free. Seems to work out excellent for them.
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
    Wikipedia relies on a lot of free labor. This can work for something like an encyclopedia or for moderating an online community. It's not a silver bullet.
- throwamon 5y ago
  This argument just shows how blind people have become to the possibilities. It's not either/or. There should be at the very least an option to pay and not be tracked. Most services offer no such option.
  - bllguo 5y ago
    why should there be an option? is there some kind of moral imperative? At the market there is one way to buy, I don't get to ask for alternatives to paying upfront. This (for lack of a better term) entitlement really puzzles me. In the physical world, if I don't like the terms, I leave and don't do business. But on the internet, when people don't like the terms they flout the rules and consume anyway. edit: I think it would be ideal to have multiple options, I would rather pay directly myself than paying by watching ads. I just have a problem with justifying refusing to pay in the way the business wants, yet still consuming their content.
  - saati 5y ago
    The ones willing to pay are the ones the advertisers want to track, so that won't work.
- asdff 5y ago
  If its an important service it could be subsidized. You can get past newspaper paywalls with a library card in most cases, people are just lazy and prefer to spend the 20 seconds it takes writing a comment complaining about a paywall rather than the two minutes it takes to find out your library covers these newspapers.
- BeetleB 5y ago
  > You see it today with newspaper paywalls and the like. Curious example, since this was the case for most of the history of journalism.
  - afavour 5y ago
    Not entirely, historically newspapers had both ads and a sale price. That price was subsidised by ads. But you’re right that it’s not so clear. Maybe a more straightforward example is broadcast TV: ABC, NBC and the like. Free at delivery, paid for by ads.
    - archduck 5y ago
      Classifieds were a huge source of income as well.
    - BeetleB 5y ago
      Yes, that's what I meant. Even though it was subsidized by ads, you still needed to pay for it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- account42 5y ago
  If you wan't social support nets, get your government to create social support nets. Using "but think of the poor" as an excuse for an industry that is designed to get you to part with as much of your money as they can is absurd.

It’s undeniable, though, that such a limitation would shut off access for people who can’t afford it. You see it today with newspaper paywalls and the like. I suspect the vast majority of us in HN would have no problem paying for most of these services but I’m not sure how I feel about us making those choices on behalf of those that can’t.

diamond_hands 5y ago
And we wonder why people seem more uninformed than ever...
KittenInABox 5y ago
If its vital enough that everyone must have access, then it should be considered a public utility like water, or something the government should subsidize like food stamps. I'd be happy for my tax dollars to go towards a well-moderated social media platform that everyone can access and by design doesn't do shit like optimize "engagement" or whatever monetizing nonsense current platforms do to try and make a buck.
leokennis 5y ago
How about a model like Wikipedia? It’s free. If you find it useful and can afford it please donate. If not it’s still free. Seems to work out excellent for them.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  Wikipedia relies on a lot of free labor. This can work for something like an encyclopedia or for moderating an online community. It's not a silver bullet.
throwamon 5y ago
This argument just shows how blind people have become to the possibilities. It's not either/or. There should be at the very least an option to pay and not be tracked. Most services offer no such option.
- bllguo 5y ago
  why should there be an option? is there some kind of moral imperative? At the market there is one way to buy, I don't get to ask for alternatives to paying upfront. This (for lack of a better term) entitlement really puzzles me. In the physical world, if I don't like the terms, I leave and don't do business. But on the internet, when people don't like the terms they flout the rules and consume anyway. edit: I think it would be ideal to have multiple options, I would rather pay directly myself than paying by watching ads. I just have a problem with justifying refusing to pay in the way the business wants, yet still consuming their content.
- saati 5y ago
  The ones willing to pay are the ones the advertisers want to track, so that won't work.
asdff 5y ago
If its an important service it could be subsidized. You can get past newspaper paywalls with a library card in most cases, people are just lazy and prefer to spend the 20 seconds it takes writing a comment complaining about a paywall rather than the two minutes it takes to find out your library covers these newspapers.
BeetleB 5y ago
> You see it today with newspaper paywalls and the like. Curious example, since this was the case for most of the history of journalism.
- afavour 5y ago
  Not entirely, historically newspapers had both ads and a sale price. That price was subsidised by ads. But you’re right that it’s not so clear. Maybe a more straightforward example is broadcast TV: ABC, NBC and the like. Free at delivery, paid for by ads.
  - archduck 5y ago
    Classifieds were a huge source of income as well.
  - BeetleB 5y ago
    Yes, that's what I meant. Even though it was subsidized by ads, you still needed to pay for it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
account42 5y ago
If you wan't social support nets, get your government to create social support nets. Using "but think of the poor" as an excuse for an industry that is designed to get you to part with as much of your money as they can is absurd.