4 ms·

The bigger issue is that it stopped being a reliable way to bypass paywalls. News outlets now seem to use a url with random characters in it (not a query parame

The bigger issue is that it stopped being a reliable way to bypass paywalls. News outlets now seem to use a url with random characters in it (not a query parameter), so it’s unlikely the url will work. 12ft.io (or whatever it is) stopped working too. Probably to not get sued. This whole thing feels like a sign that a new tech solution could solve this once and for all. Distributed hash tables have been a thing since the 90’s. Making it work well for bypassing paywalls would be hard to stop.

andai 4y ago
Interesting, I wonder if someone who thinks their business is being harmed by the site is filling up the queue.
anonporridge 4y ago
The frustrating thing is that paywalls aren't really the problem. I'm more than happy to push a couple pennies your way to read a good article (probably more than you'd make in ad revenue). The real problem is account walls. Because a good micropayment system hasn't been adopted yet, every goddamn news outlet insists that I sign up for an account, give them my credit card, and commit to a monthly payment. There's too much good content on competing outlets and platforms to deal with all that paid account management. I'll read maybe half a dozen NYT articles a year, and similar from dozens of other outlets. Let me just pay for what I want to read without signing a long term contract. This isn't just a problem with news outlets. Every kind of digital content is like this. I don't want a dozen different paid accounts on all the different streaming services. Let me pay a quarter for each show I watch and stop this "gym economics" crap of relying on the very low use customers to subsidize the high use customers.
- ghostpepper 4y ago
  What if it was $5 per NYT article instead of 5c to make the economics work? Would you still do it?
  - julianlam 4y ago
    May I ask what the purpose of this thought experiment is? It seems pointless to me, given you could purchase a copy of the entire NYT of that day for about the same, it would seem rather onerous to charge that much for a single digital view.
    - sgerenser 4y ago
      Yeah $5 is way too high. Unfortunately we have proof that 5c is too low, though. Blendle tried to make it work at (IIRC) something like 25c/article and apparently that wasn't enough (they still exist, but apparently their searching for a profitable business model). https://halcrawford.substack.com/p/micropayments-the-news-idea-that https://halcrawford.substack.com/p/micropayments-the-news-id...
  - anonporridge 4y ago
    Depends on the quality. $5 is getting into full ebook territory, but I've spent that much on ebooks that turned out to be garbage plenty of times. I suppose if a singular NYT article dropped that took the effort and expense of writing a full book, and there was enough chatter about it to vouch for the quality, then sure, I would be fairly likely to pay that much, if and only if it was a one time exchange and did not require setting up a long term subscription relationship.

andai 4y ago

Interesting, I wonder if someone who thinks their business is being harmed by the site is filling up the queue.

anonporridge 4y ago

The frustrating thing is that paywalls aren't really the problem. I'm more than happy to push a couple pennies your way to read a good article (probably more than you'd make in ad revenue). The real problem is account walls. Because a good micropayment system hasn't been adopted yet, every goddamn news outlet insists that I sign up for an account, give them my credit card, and commit to a monthly payment. There's too much good content on competing outlets and platforms to deal with all that paid account management. I'll read maybe half a dozen NYT articles a year, and similar from dozens of other outlets. Let me just pay for what I want to read without signing a long term contract. This isn't just a problem with news outlets. Every kind of digital content is like this. I don't want a dozen different paid accounts on all the different streaming services. Let me pay a quarter for each show I watch and stop this "gym economics" crap of relying on the very low use customers to subsidize the high use customers.

ghostpepper 4y ago
What if it was $5 per NYT article instead of 5c to make the economics work? Would you still do it?
- julianlam 4y ago
  May I ask what the purpose of this thought experiment is? It seems pointless to me, given you could purchase a copy of the entire NYT of that day for about the same, it would seem rather onerous to charge that much for a single digital view.
  - sgerenser 4y ago
    Yeah $5 is way too high. Unfortunately we have proof that 5c is too low, though. Blendle tried to make it work at (IIRC) something like 25c/article and apparently that wasn't enough (they still exist, but apparently their searching for a profitable business model). https://halcrawford.substack.com/p/micropayments-the-news-idea-that https://halcrawford.substack.com/p/micropayments-the-news-id...
- anonporridge 4y ago
  Depends on the quality. $5 is getting into full ebook territory, but I've spent that much on ebooks that turned out to be garbage plenty of times. I suppose if a singular NYT article dropped that took the effort and expense of writing a full book, and there was enough chatter about it to vouch for the quality, then sure, I would be fairly likely to pay that much, if and only if it was a one time exchange and did not require setting up a long term subscription relationship.