3 ms·

Technically it wouldn't be hard, and stuff like Substack makes you think it's possible. The problem is getting the authors and publishers to agree to it. Consum

Technically it wouldn't be hard, and stuff like Substack makes you think it's possible. The problem is getting the authors and publishers to agree to it. Consumers will never be able to micromanage content; one thing we've forgotten in the day of swiftly switching between ad/news platforms is that traditional media does serve a purpose as consolidators. Only the most wonkish will seek out individual writers and pay for their articles. If writers could make money that way, they would. But they have to go under contract with whomever will pay; and the WaPo isn't going to let you get through their paywall and read one journalist's post for 10¢. Also, a dime here and there doesn't pay for a middle east bureau or a team of reporters to cover an election or a war. It's unrealistic to expect reporters to risk their necks on the possibility of keeping an audience and it just might lead to the kind of unanticipated negative results that online advertising did. Me, for instance, I'm done sending any money to Matt Taibbi until he goes back to Russia, drinks at least four gallons of vodka, and gets an interview with Vlad. Should he do that for my $1? Fuck no! A world where we pay journalists directly is a world without editors, where you can't trust any information to be vetted at all. In all probability it's just some lies their personal subscribers want to hear. They may be hired whores, but at least if they work for a newspaper you know who hired them.

zozbot234 5y ago
> Also, a dime here and there doesn't pay for a middle east bureau or a team of reporters to cover an election or a war. Check out Patreon and Kickstarter some time. Sure, that's way more than "a dime" for the basic individual contribution, but the dollar amounts are still very manageable. And it all adds up. > A world where we pay journalists directly is a world without editors, where you can't trust any information to be vetted at all. You can pay people for editorial work, too. Ultimately, you're just choosing whom to trust.
arthurkarell 5y ago
micropayments = microvalue for the intended user base
jillesvangurp 5y ago
The technology for this is mostly boring, off the shelf stuff. Or it should be. Crypto might help but is probably more of a distraction than an asset given all the scams, hypes, etc. that surrounds it. But building such a thing on e.g. Stellar or something similarly suitable for fintech and micropayments would be pretty doable. I actually know one company in this space, Satoshi Pay, that have been trying to do this using Stellar. The issue is that building something like this is something that needs funding. You need engineers, lawyers, financially savvy people, etc. The tech side is actually the easy part. This in turn often implies companies and central control and ownership. Investors get involved and from then on it's about them getting a return on investment rather than actually solving the problem. And of course these companies start competing with each other and start creating walled gardens. And then there are people inside the walls and outside the walls. And of course multiple walled gardens just makes it worse. That's basically the history to date of micropayments: it has not worked so far and IMHO it cannot work this way. In my view, such a thing would instead have to be run and coordinated by non profit organizations (you'd probably need multiple legal entities in different countries) and be based on open standards. Getting that organized is not primarily a technical problem. In fact, it would probably be best for journalists themselves to get organized and jointly own such a thing instead of waiting for some entrepreneur to wave a magic wand to make it happen. You could fund this from memberships. For example authors wishing to earn on the platform could pay a flat fee per year in exchange for a cut of the monthly revenue based on the performance of their content or some other rules. That way 100% of money payed to readers would go to content creators and the platform maintenance would be payed for by the receivers of that money. And you could simply withhold that from their monthly earnings. For example 10$ per author adds up quickly. It basically means that they'd only need 100 reads at 10 cents. Anything beyond that would be profit. A few tens of thousands of authors like that could manage to fund a pretty sizable organization + hosting and other cost.

zozbot234 5y ago

> Also, a dime here and there doesn't pay for a middle east bureau or a team of reporters to cover an election or a war. Check out Patreon and Kickstarter some time. Sure, that's way more than "a dime" for the basic individual contribution, but the dollar amounts are still very manageable. And it all adds up. > A world where we pay journalists directly is a world without editors, where you can't trust any information to be vetted at all. You can pay people for editorial work, too. Ultimately, you're just choosing whom to trust.

arthurkarell 5y ago

micropayments = microvalue for the intended user base

jillesvangurp 5y ago

The technology for this is mostly boring, off the shelf stuff. Or it should be. Crypto might help but is probably more of a distraction than an asset given all the scams, hypes, etc. that surrounds it. But building such a thing on e.g. Stellar or something similarly suitable for fintech and micropayments would be pretty doable. I actually know one company in this space, Satoshi Pay, that have been trying to do this using Stellar. The issue is that building something like this is something that needs funding. You need engineers, lawyers, financially savvy people, etc. The tech side is actually the easy part. This in turn often implies companies and central control and ownership. Investors get involved and from then on it's about them getting a return on investment rather than actually solving the problem. And of course these companies start competing with each other and start creating walled gardens. And then there are people inside the walls and outside the walls. And of course multiple walled gardens just makes it worse. That's basically the history to date of micropayments: it has not worked so far and IMHO it cannot work this way. In my view, such a thing would instead have to be run and coordinated by non profit organizations (you'd probably need multiple legal entities in different countries) and be based on open standards. Getting that organized is not primarily a technical problem. In fact, it would probably be best for journalists themselves to get organized and jointly own such a thing instead of waiting for some entrepreneur to wave a magic wand to make it happen. You could fund this from memberships. For example authors wishing to earn on the platform could pay a flat fee per year in exchange for a cut of the monthly revenue based on the performance of their content or some other rules. That way 100% of money payed to readers would go to content creators and the platform maintenance would be payed for by the receivers of that money. And you could simply withhold that from their monthly earnings. For example 10$ per author adds up quickly. It basically means that they'd only need 100 reads at 10 cents. Anything beyond that would be profit. A few tens of thousands of authors like that could manage to fund a pretty sizable organization + hosting and other cost.