3 ms·

I will never understand people complaining about paywalls. Quality writing cost money and these writers need to support in one way or another. Ads are not effec

I will never understand people complaining about paywalls. Quality writing cost money and these writers need to support in one way or another. Ads are not effective because everyone runs adblock and ads are also suspect so the easiest way to is to directly charge for their work which everyone whines about while simultaneously whining about how low quality most writing is these days. I wonder why?

asteroidp 5y ago
Then they should remove the massive amount of interuptions by ads
mikeiz404 5y ago
Personally I don’t like paywalls because… 1) the price is too high for the content I consume. Often I will read a single article from a single well known publisher a couple times a month to a couple times a year. 2) I don’t know if I will find the content valuable until after I have read it. Headlines haven’t been of too much help especially lately where some quality content is under click-baity headlines; though sometimes the opposite is true or more often click-bait headlines do accurately reflect the quality of the content. 3) There is a lot of friction to pay even if the price did match my consumption model. And in addition to friction I have concerns with how my personal information might be used or resold; Creating an addressable audience via first party data is a tactic being pushed by advertisers and marketers. So while I do agree with your evaluation I think the problem is a bit more nuanced (or maybe I’m just the minority). Some have suggested a “spotify for news” which checks many of the above boxes but creates its own privacy concerns, may incentivize low quality content in the way ads do, add walled garden concerns, and may introduce fair compensation concerns. An “open” solution, as hand wavy as that sounds, seems closer to ideal but as has been demonstrated time and again may not be competitive enough to “closed” solutions where winner takes all is in effect. Just some thoughts.

asteroidp 5y ago

Then they should remove the massive amount of interuptions by ads

mikeiz404 5y ago

Personally I don’t like paywalls because… 1) the price is too high for the content I consume. Often I will read a single article from a single well known publisher a couple times a month to a couple times a year. 2) I don’t know if I will find the content valuable until after I have read it. Headlines haven’t been of too much help especially lately where some quality content is under click-baity headlines; though sometimes the opposite is true or more often click-bait headlines do accurately reflect the quality of the content. 3) There is a lot of friction to pay even if the price did match my consumption model. And in addition to friction I have concerns with how my personal information might be used or resold; Creating an addressable audience via first party data is a tactic being pushed by advertisers and marketers. So while I do agree with your evaluation I think the problem is a bit more nuanced (or maybe I’m just the minority). Some have suggested a “spotify for news” which checks many of the above boxes but creates its own privacy concerns, may incentivize low quality content in the way ads do, add walled garden concerns, and may introduce fair compensation concerns. An “open” solution, as hand wavy as that sounds, seems closer to ideal but as has been demonstrated time and again may not be competitive enough to “closed” solutions where winner takes all is in effect. Just some thoughts.