3 ms·

But what do they want? I mean aside from "make laws to force google to license our stuff, they must be forced to publish our stuff, and forced to pay for it", w

But what do they want? I mean aside from "make laws to force google to license our stuff, they must be forced to publish our stuff, and forced to pay for it", which is totally insane. Personally just fucking let me pay $1 per article for me to read. I will NEVER subscribe to a recurring thing, but i bet you I'll start paying a lot, as I want to read many articles per month. Paywall sure, but get the fucking subscription the hell away from me.

kmonsen 5y ago
I think it needs to be less than $1, and really easy to do. And there needs to be trust that the card will only be used for that one article.
- thomasahle 5y ago
  Something like $sqrt(n) per month for `n` articles would be interesting.
- knorker 5y ago
  Sure. I may be showing my money privilege. I would pay, but that doesn't mean it's the best price. Just an example. Yes: fast, easy, and safe. But those are implementation details, and solvable ones. But seems to me they're not onboard with any of it. They want an account, and a bunch of BS. I was once so tempted that i was FIVE screens into one paper's registration process when I went "fuck this" and closed the tab. Apparently they don't want my money.
  - kmonsen 5y ago
    This has happened to me many times as well. It needs to be extremely friction free and pretty cheap.
Enginerrrd 5y ago
Totally agree, although $1 is too much. But $0.25 sounds about right. To be honest, just give me the price you charge advertisers to advertise to me and let me read it with no advertisements. I'd be immensely satisfied with that solution, but no way in hell am I paying $15-$30/month for every single separately affiliated site. It's ridiculous honestly when they're otherwise perfectly happy to serve me ads instead for a fraction of that price.
sorum 5y ago
What they want is a tax. But they don't want to call it a "tax", because that's unpopular. As Benedict Evans put it, when France fined Google for the same reasons: > The shakedown continues. It’s hard to see how making tech companies pretend to ‘buy’ something that has little to no economic value to them is a path to a sustainable model for newspapers. If you want a tax and a subsidy, be honest and call it that. https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1414856375348482050 https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1414856375348482050
- knorker 5y ago
  So they all want to be the BBC? They should be careful what they wish for. Having revenue stream depending on the good grace of the government seems even more dangerous.
colinmhayes 5y ago
The vast majority of people are willing to pay exactly $0 for news, because they can access it for free through sites that copy articles as they're published.
- knorker 5y ago
  Well, then there's nothing lost since they would not get a subscription either.

kmonsen 5y ago

I think it needs to be less than $1, and really easy to do. And there needs to be trust that the card will only be used for that one article.

thomasahle 5y ago
Something like $sqrt(n) per month for `n` articles would be interesting.
knorker 5y ago
Sure. I may be showing my money privilege. I would pay, but that doesn't mean it's the best price. Just an example. Yes: fast, easy, and safe. But those are implementation details, and solvable ones. But seems to me they're not onboard with any of it. They want an account, and a bunch of BS. I was once so tempted that i was FIVE screens into one paper's registration process when I went "fuck this" and closed the tab. Apparently they don't want my money.
- kmonsen 5y ago
  This has happened to me many times as well. It needs to be extremely friction free and pretty cheap.

Enginerrrd 5y ago

Totally agree, although $1 is too much. But $0.25 sounds about right. To be honest, just give me the price you charge advertisers to advertise to me and let me read it with no advertisements. I'd be immensely satisfied with that solution, but no way in hell am I paying $15-$30/month for every single separately affiliated site. It's ridiculous honestly when they're otherwise perfectly happy to serve me ads instead for a fraction of that price.

sorum 5y ago

What they want is a tax. But they don't want to call it a "tax", because that's unpopular. As Benedict Evans put it, when France fined Google for the same reasons: > The shakedown continues. It’s hard to see how making tech companies pretend to ‘buy’ something that has little to no economic value to them is a path to a sustainable model for newspapers. If you want a tax and a subsidy, be honest and call it that. https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1414856375348482050 https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1414856375348482050

knorker 5y ago
So they all want to be the BBC? They should be careful what they wish for. Having revenue stream depending on the good grace of the government seems even more dangerous.

colinmhayes 5y ago

The vast majority of people are willing to pay exactly $0 for news, because they can access it for free through sites that copy articles as they're published.

knorker 5y ago
Well, then there's nothing lost since they would not get a subscription either.