3 ms·

>Poverty or a poor upbringing is not a badge of honour, but many people see it as such and maybe you've become accustomed to easily shutting up anybody by sayin

>Poverty or a poor upbringing is not a badge of honour, but many people see it as such and maybe you've become accustomed to easily shutting up anybody by saying that they have no idea what it's like being poor I don't view it as a badge of honor, but I know that its almost always privileged people that suggest locking the lower classes out of information. That pisses me off like nothing else. People are all for the poor until it comes down to actually finding solutions. >As for getting the devices for free, the same argument could be applied to online content Not particularly unless piracy gets involved. If we lock everything behind a paywall, going to the library or downloading information won't do jack. >I find your arguments about "classism" a bit strange. Is it "classism" that some stuff is more expensive in the supermarket? Is it "classism" that the plumber charges his hourly fee to the poor as well as to the rich? That an iPhone costs a thousand dollars? I am talking about information. Not physical goods. You are applying the logic of limited physical goods to online services that are virtually unlimited. Bandwidth is cheap. As for if #2 gets implemented, I guarantee you that this will not work. Paid content will not be cheap. Never has been and never will. In your other comments you bring up that you foresee services being a mere 10$ a year. The price hikes and predatory practices that online services have had prove that at best you are naive. If #2 happens, I fully support people doing #4. Now there are other options. Look at Coffeezilla on YouTube...doesn't run ads, but runs entirely off of donations. Other youtubers do the same thing. They set up a patreon, give benefits and incentives to do so, and for those that can't afford to support they watch for free. PBS had a similar thing going when analogue airwaves were legal for TV and still does to some extent with their streaming service. Some shows you have to pay for but the important stuff, such as newshour, are completely free for everyone to watch. For large scale digital projects, some features could be locked behind a paywall whereas the majority of content is free. That is how Discord makes its money. The ad/paid dichotomy does not exist...there are other options that allow people to freely access content and communicate with people in ways that normally they would not be able to afford.

carlosjobim 3y ago
All I can say is try it yourself if you think donations is a good model. Unless you are huge like Coffezilla, you'll have a very hard time getting donations (or paid subscribers). People tend to fall into the content creator casino trap, since for every person who gets rich or manages to have a sustainable income for their work, there's 1000 who wastes a ton of effort without ever getting anywhere - even when the content is brilliant. It's kind of like Hollywood, a machine that eats dreams to make a few people stars and platform owners filthy rich on free labour. > If we lock everything behind a paywall, going to the library or downloading information won't do jack. Go to a library. You can find a whole bunch of paywalled newspapers and magazines to read for free there. Not to mention... books. > As for if #2 gets implemented, I guarantee you that this will not work. Paid content will not be cheap. Never has been and never will. In your other comments you bring up that you foresee services being a mere 10$ a year. You can get some excellent content for $10 per year, but a more normal price is around $50 per year - which is still dirt cheap. I chose $10 per year as an example, because that's the price point where people start complaining about how broke they are and can't they just have it for free. > I am talking about information. Not physical goods. You are applying the logic of limited physical goods to online services that are virtually unlimited. Bandwidth is cheap. This is the problem right here. The false assumption. People need to spend a whole lot of time and effort and usually also money to create content and information. They need to get paid, they need to sustain themselves. Or you'll just have some hobby bloggers writing about their Raspberry Pi. Why don't you apply this argument to a restaurant? The ingredients in your meal are cheap, so why should you pay for your meal? Since the labour of the people making and serving apparently has no value. Why aren't Ubers just the cost of gas? Etc. If small time content creators can't get paid, they'll do something else. That content will not exist to pirate. You will only have ad- and scam-fueled mainstream content. I suspect your answer is probably "Good, fuck them!", but I think that's an unnecessary loss for the world and human knowledge.
- danjoredd 3y ago
  >People tend to fall into the content creator casino trap, since for every person who gets rich or manages to have a sustainable income for their work, there's 1000 who wastes a ton of effort without ever getting anywhere That applies to paywalled content too, my guy. That logic doesn't work. >You can get some excellent content for $10 per year, but a more normal price is around $50 per year - which is still dirt cheap I have never seen any content anywhere be available for 10$ a year, and 50$ a year isn't cheap unless you provide a LOOOOOT of content. Even if it is worth it, most people living paycheck to paycheck can't afford that. >Why don't you apply this argument to a restaurant? The ingredients in your meal are cheap, so why should you pay for your meal? Since the labour of the people making and serving apparently has no value. Why aren't Ubers just the cost of gas? Etc. All of those things are more expensive than bandwidth and are also scarce physical goods. Yes, I know, labor costs are a thing and so is electricity, etc. Thats why I brought up a mixed-payment model such as Discord. You might not make as much money as Facebook with their ad-based services, but if you want to serve the biggest amount of people that is a logical way to go. The service is free, but non-essential extras cost. Works for both parties. >If small time content creators can't get paid, they'll do something else. That content will not exist to pirate. I find that this is rarely true, and is hyperbole at best. Very few small time content creators paywall their content. Rather, they sell merch and accept donations. "But, what if they don't win the lottery and get big?" Yeah, they wouldn't be making that money anyway even if it were paywalled. As for big time content creators, such as Disney, they also make the vast majority of their money off of merch. The actual ticket sales are a small fraction of total revenue so piracy is an extremely small dent in profit. I say all this to say this...paywalls are not the answer to this problem. Its not a dichotomy like people want to assume. These past few days I have researched alternative revenue models, even brought up a few in this discussion, and paywalling is too restrictive to make any sort of sense for most consumers that are broke or value their money.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    > That applies to paywalled content too, my guy. That logic doesn't work. Not at all. If you charge for your content or services, you're starting to get an okay reimbursement at some hundreds of subscribers. With ad-supported content on social media, you need to count your audience in tens or hundreds of thousands if you want to make more than $20 per month. > 50$ a year isn't cheap unless you provide a LOOOOOT of content. Curiosity Stream have promotions for $10 per year, if you needed an example. It's all about the quality of content, which it seems you don't care much for. $50 per year is cheap for a local newspaper, for example. Yet, most people think like you and that's why local journalism is dying. The result is that people sit at home and rage about Trump or Biden and know everything about the Titanic submarine, but have no clue about what's going on in their neighborhood or region. Information that is of very high value and can have a huge impact on the person who was too cheap to pay a pittance for it. > All of those things are more expensive than bandwidth and are also scarce physical goods. Labour is not a scarce physical good. That's what you're paying for in the restaurant. But if the result is on a screen instead of on a plate, suddenly the creator doesn't deserve to get paid. Maybe a donation, if and only if you feel like it and are in a good mood. > Very few small time content creators paywall their content. Rather, they sell merch and accept donations. Just take a look at how many projects abandoned because the creators moved on because they couldn't afford the monetary cost or time. Things that where enjoyed by thousands, but that very few wanted to contribute to, neither in time, money or effort. I've seen this many times. Websites that were huge in user base and impact, getting maybe a couple of hundred dollars per month in donations, while the user base is counted in millions. Or sites giving away great stuff for free for years and then started asking for payment. Do you think anybody is grateful for the years of free content? No, they're outraged that the creators don't continue making the stuff for free anymore. "Greedy", "beggar" and such are what content creators get called when they dare to charge or ask for donations. Those still there and asking for donations and selling merch are those who didn't move on. Individual paywalls are hard because most creators aren't that technical to be able to set it up. That's why I think paywalls work better as an umbrella service. > and paywalling is too restrictive to make any sort of sense for most consumers that are broke or value their money. They aren't consumers if they don't pay, that's the thing. Why should anybody care about them? I hope these kind of people fucking stay on TikTok or go offline. They contribute nothing, why the hell should anybody care about them?

carlosjobim 3y ago

All I can say is try it yourself if you think donations is a good model. Unless you are huge like Coffezilla, you'll have a very hard time getting donations (or paid subscribers). People tend to fall into the content creator casino trap, since for every person who gets rich or manages to have a sustainable income for their work, there's 1000 who wastes a ton of effort without ever getting anywhere - even when the content is brilliant. It's kind of like Hollywood, a machine that eats dreams to make a few people stars and platform owners filthy rich on free labour. > If we lock everything behind a paywall, going to the library or downloading information won't do jack. Go to a library. You can find a whole bunch of paywalled newspapers and magazines to read for free there. Not to mention... books. > As for if #2 gets implemented, I guarantee you that this will not work. Paid content will not be cheap. Never has been and never will. In your other comments you bring up that you foresee services being a mere 10$ a year. You can get some excellent content for $10 per year, but a more normal price is around $50 per year - which is still dirt cheap. I chose $10 per year as an example, because that's the price point where people start complaining about how broke they are and can't they just have it for free. > I am talking about information. Not physical goods. You are applying the logic of limited physical goods to online services that are virtually unlimited. Bandwidth is cheap. This is the problem right here. The false assumption. People need to spend a whole lot of time and effort and usually also money to create content and information. They need to get paid, they need to sustain themselves. Or you'll just have some hobby bloggers writing about their Raspberry Pi. Why don't you apply this argument to a restaurant? The ingredients in your meal are cheap, so why should you pay for your meal? Since the labour of the people making and serving apparently has no value. Why aren't Ubers just the cost of gas? Etc. If small time content creators can't get paid, they'll do something else. That content will not exist to pirate. You will only have ad- and scam-fueled mainstream content. I suspect your answer is probably "Good, fuck them!", but I think that's an unnecessary loss for the world and human knowledge.

danjoredd 3y ago
>People tend to fall into the content creator casino trap, since for every person who gets rich or manages to have a sustainable income for their work, there's 1000 who wastes a ton of effort without ever getting anywhere That applies to paywalled content too, my guy. That logic doesn't work. >You can get some excellent content for $10 per year, but a more normal price is around $50 per year - which is still dirt cheap I have never seen any content anywhere be available for 10$ a year, and 50$ a year isn't cheap unless you provide a LOOOOOT of content. Even if it is worth it, most people living paycheck to paycheck can't afford that. >Why don't you apply this argument to a restaurant? The ingredients in your meal are cheap, so why should you pay for your meal? Since the labour of the people making and serving apparently has no value. Why aren't Ubers just the cost of gas? Etc. All of those things are more expensive than bandwidth and are also scarce physical goods. Yes, I know, labor costs are a thing and so is electricity, etc. Thats why I brought up a mixed-payment model such as Discord. You might not make as much money as Facebook with their ad-based services, but if you want to serve the biggest amount of people that is a logical way to go. The service is free, but non-essential extras cost. Works for both parties. >If small time content creators can't get paid, they'll do something else. That content will not exist to pirate. I find that this is rarely true, and is hyperbole at best. Very few small time content creators paywall their content. Rather, they sell merch and accept donations. "But, what if they don't win the lottery and get big?" Yeah, they wouldn't be making that money anyway even if it were paywalled. As for big time content creators, such as Disney, they also make the vast majority of their money off of merch. The actual ticket sales are a small fraction of total revenue so piracy is an extremely small dent in profit. I say all this to say this...paywalls are not the answer to this problem. Its not a dichotomy like people want to assume. These past few days I have researched alternative revenue models, even brought up a few in this discussion, and paywalling is too restrictive to make any sort of sense for most consumers that are broke or value their money.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  > That applies to paywalled content too, my guy. That logic doesn't work. Not at all. If you charge for your content or services, you're starting to get an okay reimbursement at some hundreds of subscribers. With ad-supported content on social media, you need to count your audience in tens or hundreds of thousands if you want to make more than $20 per month. > 50$ a year isn't cheap unless you provide a LOOOOOT of content. Curiosity Stream have promotions for $10 per year, if you needed an example. It's all about the quality of content, which it seems you don't care much for. $50 per year is cheap for a local newspaper, for example. Yet, most people think like you and that's why local journalism is dying. The result is that people sit at home and rage about Trump or Biden and know everything about the Titanic submarine, but have no clue about what's going on in their neighborhood or region. Information that is of very high value and can have a huge impact on the person who was too cheap to pay a pittance for it. > All of those things are more expensive than bandwidth and are also scarce physical goods. Labour is not a scarce physical good. That's what you're paying for in the restaurant. But if the result is on a screen instead of on a plate, suddenly the creator doesn't deserve to get paid. Maybe a donation, if and only if you feel like it and are in a good mood. > Very few small time content creators paywall their content. Rather, they sell merch and accept donations. Just take a look at how many projects abandoned because the creators moved on because they couldn't afford the monetary cost or time. Things that where enjoyed by thousands, but that very few wanted to contribute to, neither in time, money or effort. I've seen this many times. Websites that were huge in user base and impact, getting maybe a couple of hundred dollars per month in donations, while the user base is counted in millions. Or sites giving away great stuff for free for years and then started asking for payment. Do you think anybody is grateful for the years of free content? No, they're outraged that the creators don't continue making the stuff for free anymore. "Greedy", "beggar" and such are what content creators get called when they dare to charge or ask for donations. Those still there and asking for donations and selling merch are those who didn't move on. Individual paywalls are hard because most creators aren't that technical to be able to set it up. That's why I think paywalls work better as an umbrella service. > and paywalling is too restrictive to make any sort of sense for most consumers that are broke or value their money. They aren't consumers if they don't pay, that's the thing. Why should anybody care about them? I hope these kind of people fucking stay on TikTok or go offline. They contribute nothing, why the hell should anybody care about them?