34 ms·

Also, a pay-per-use Internet (where appropriate), where people will vote for content with their wallets, instead of having to purchase subscriptions whether the

by hliyan 3y ago

Also, a pay-per-use Internet (where appropriate), where people will vote for content with their wallets, instead of having to purchase subscriptions whether they read an article or not. Just a few minutes ago, I wanted to read an NYT article but it asked me to buy a $1/mo subscription. Very cheap, but a) I don't read NYT that regularly and b) doing that with every news outlet I occasionally read, adds up. On the other hand, if it had asked for $0.25 to read just that article, I might have paid it. I would have been even more likely to pay if there had been some service, possibly provided by the ISP itself, where all such microtransactions of mine are aggregated and billed once for me at the end of the month.

sanex 3y ago
I've been saying this for a while. It doesn't even need to be that expensive either. Pay a penny to watch a YouTube video type of deal. It can be done through lightning network to avoid per transaction credit card fees which would probably otherwise make it too expensive. My biggest hangup is paying for something that quickly turns out to be crap. I guess people would learn pretty quickly and hopefully the recommendation algorithm would start to favor just good content over clickbait sellout garbage.
- gosub100 3y ago
  I would love that. just a tip jar button on my browser that I load up with a few bucks every month, and send to websites or commenters who made me laugh or got me thinking. Streamers have proven (albeit crudely) that viewers are more than willing to part with their money (if they have it). And I'm not just hinting at salacious young women (who probably receive the bulk of the dollar value). There's a streamer team who broadcast live at LAX and other airports and get excited about the various air traffic. It's fun watching their dedication and passion, their broadcasting skills grow, and how happy they are to do what they enjoy. I've donated probably $200-$300 over the years to them.
  - hliyan 3y ago
    I've literally read several articles today (mostly via HN) from which I have garnered enough value to pay at least $1 to each author. And I'd gladly pay it, as long as it's not a subscription and I don't have to enter my card details all over the place, or have my money charged as a large number of individual transactions.
    - gosub100 3y ago
      Especially for micropayments. If I google and find a minor 1-liner that taught me something I'd deposit $0.10 or $0.25. If it was something I was struggling with for a long time - like some arcane tar or mt command to use my tape backup drive, I'd give at least a few $. These amounts add up quickly, and encourage a much more wholesome form of publishing.
  - SleepilyLimping 3y ago
    This was kind of the theory of using Brave Browser to earn BAT through ads, and then set up an "auto-contribute" list that took your earned BAT and distributed a % that you set to each person. The adoption didn't exactly happen, especially with Brave's weirdness lately.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      I like the idea of BAT but I just don't fully trust it.
- gspencley 3y ago
  > and hopefully the recommendation algorithm would start to favor just good content over clickbait sellout garbage. My problem with recommendation algorithms, at least YouTube's, is that by design they recommend things based on keywords and categories for videos you have watched previously. So what happens is that I get hooked on some new topic, say cave diving for example. And then I watch a whole bunch of cave diving videos ... until I get sick of cave diving and want something different. But because of my viewing patterns, my recommendations are FLOODED with cave diving videos that I don't care about anymore. I don't know how to solve that problem. And it might even just be a "me" problem related to the way that my brain works.
  - skydhash 3y ago
    Not just a "you" problem. I have to routinely reset my youtube history (I don't have time to prune it) to avoid stale recommendation. I have few interests, but every once in a while, I'm on a research spree or just want some new vibes, then my home view is ruined. If they are not getting rid of the algorithm, it would make sense to let me manage the keywords that are driving it.
    - silvestrov 3y ago
      I really want the ability to easily create multiple persons/personalities like Netflix lets you do. On Netflix I have a seperate "user" for asian movies so the main user is not flooded with recommendations for asian movies. Those 2 users have extremly different list of recommended movies. When I watch a few "The girl is doing her homework" music movies on YouTube they quickly drown out everything else on the homepage. When I later watch a few "watch later" engineering movies, the music videos are drowned out and I then have difficulty finding more music videos. It's like starting over from scratch every time.
      - ytytkk 3y ago
        You can create new channels and use each them just for viewing, from the YouTube account page: https://www.youtube.com/account https://www.youtube.com/account Works well to keep different viewing histories and commenting identities separated.
- spacemadness 3y ago
  This is giving me PTSD from using old online services like Quantum Link on the C64 and having my parents freak out on me for racking up a huge bill.
jrd259 3y ago
Ted Nelson's vision (in "Dream Machines") was strongly focused on micro-transactions for this reason.
- teddyh 3y ago
  To “nickel and dime”¹ is usually seen as a bad thing; to intentionally build it into our information infrastructure would probably be a horrible idea. 1. <https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=nickel_and_dime&oldid=76214410#Verb https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=nickel_and_dime&...>
Gulstar 3y ago
There is this Dutch company called Blendle that started out with this idea, the NY times even invested in it. But unfortunately it was not a viable model, so they switched to a all you can consume type of subscription like every other platform
pjc50 3y ago
We had per-use systems. I remember when people would pay multiple £ for one (1) phone ringtone. I think Minitel may have been per-use metered as well? Either way, both were obliterated by the massive benefit of not paying per use.
toyg 3y ago
> if it had asked for $0.25 The economics of credit-card transactions, unfortunately, make this fundamentally impossible.
- mr_mitm 3y ago
  I pay these tiny amounts by card all the time for public toilets, parking meters and the like.
  - toyg 3y ago
    And it's why, when paying like that, you're typically paying more than would have done in cash, or the amount is high enough to cover the extra transaction fees. That's definitely the case for most UK carpark operators - the minimum amounts you can specify online are always higher than the ones for cash, because of transaction fees. You're probably also misjudging how tiny those amounts are. Vending machines, for example, nowadays don't really stock anything costing less than £0.50, if they take credit cards. Public toilets can often be £1 or £2.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  This would have to be a "load up a wallet and 'pay'" sort of thing, where the website owner gets the money in aggregate minus a transaction fee when they request it.
- red_admiral 3y ago
  I can't reply to the child directly due to nesting, so I'll do it here: As far as I know, for in-person transactions ("contactless" in Europe) the economics work differently - for example SumUp quotes a flat fee of 1.69% plus a small one-time cost to buy and register the reader devices. That gets you parking meters, public toilets and the like. However, for online credit card transactions (which are a very different risk profile, to be fair) there's a fixed cost of something like $0.20 per transaction on top of the percentage fee. That is why, for example, substack has a minimum pricing tier of $5 for subscriptions, and why Patreon is "restructuring" because their original micropayments model wasn't breaking even. So I agree with the parent poster that microtransactions _online_ are currently infeasible - not fundamentally impossible (Visa/MasterCard/Amex/Diners etc. could bring in a new pricing model) but it is impossible for even the NYT to set up a workable "pay $0.50 to read this artice" tier at the moment. A kind of system where you micropay "on credit" and it's all billed once at the end of the month could, depending on the jurisdiction, make the service provider subject to regulation as a provider of financial services.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
carlosjobim 3y ago
You just spent much more than $1 of your time arguing against spending a dollar. You would never spend 25 cents to read an article, don't fool yourself. If that was an option, you'd invent another reason not to pay. Oh, I need to fold my laundry, no time to read this article.
renonce 3y ago
A social-first Internet makes sense but this is not going to be the way people do it. Let’s consider some models for rewarding content authors: 1. You are asked to pay before viewing the content. This incentivizes content owners to display clickbait titles but does not incentivize content quality. People will click through lots of interesting titles and have a hard time finding out the valuable ones. 2. You are asked to pay after viewing the content. This is similar to a donation - just look at the state of open-source software. Only a few geeks who understand the value of donation will pay. 3. You are asked to pay a subscription fee upfront, and the fee is split between all content owners that you did read. If you view YouTube, have you signed up for YouTube Premium? Why not? Do you trust YouTube not to hold your videos hostage and pay only a tiny bit of revenue to uploaders?
pjc50 3y ago
(I know it's bad HN to put two replies to a comment, but I found my prepared argument: The Problem With MicroPayments is MicroFraud) Unsolved, difficult problems of micropayments: pay before viewing: how do you know that the thing you're paying for is the thing that you're expecting? What if it's a rickroll or goatse? so do you give refunds a la steam? pay and adverts: double-dipping is very annoying pay and adverts: how do you know who you're paying? A page appears with a micropayment request, but how do you know you've not just paid the advertiser to view their ad? pay and frame: can you have multiple payees per displayed page? (this has good and bad ideas) pay and popups: it's going to be like those notification or app install modals, yet another annoyance for people to bounce off pay limits: contactless has a £30 limit here. Would you have the same payment system suitable for $.01 payments and $1000 payments? How easy is it to trick people into paying over the odds (see refunds)? pay and censors: who's excluded from the payment system? Why? Part 2: business model problems! getting money into the system is plagued by usual fraud problems of stolen card transactions for pure digital goods nobody wants to build a federated system; everyone wants to build a Play/Apple/Steam store where they take 30% winner-take-all effects are very strong Play store et al already exist, why not use that? Free substitute goods are just a click away Consumers will pirate anything no matter how cheap the original is No real consumer demand for micropayments => lemma from previous 3 items: market for online goods is efficient enough to drive all marginal prices to zero existing problem of the play store letting your kid spend all the money friction: it would be great if you didn't have to repeatedly approve things, such as a micropayment for every page of a webcomic archive. But blanket approval lets bad actors drain the jar or inattentive users waste it and then feel conned first most obvious model for making this work is porn, which is inevitably blacklisted by the payment processors, has a worse environment for fraud/chargebacks, and is toxic to VCs (see Patreon and even Craigslist) Internet has actually killed previously working "micropayment" systems such as Minitel, paid ringtones (anyone remember the dark era of Crazy Frog?); surviving ones like premium SMS and phone have a scammy, seedy feel. accounting requirements: do you have to pay VAT on that micropayment? do you have to declare it? Is it a federal offence to sell something to an Iranian or North Korean for one cent?

by hliyan 3y ago

sanex 3y ago

I've been saying this for a while. It doesn't even need to be that expensive either. Pay a penny to watch a YouTube video type of deal. It can be done through lightning network to avoid per transaction credit card fees which would probably otherwise make it too expensive. My biggest hangup is paying for something that quickly turns out to be crap. I guess people would learn pretty quickly and hopefully the recommendation algorithm would start to favor just good content over clickbait sellout garbage.

gosub100 3y ago
I would love that. just a tip jar button on my browser that I load up with a few bucks every month, and send to websites or commenters who made me laugh or got me thinking. Streamers have proven (albeit crudely) that viewers are more than willing to part with their money (if they have it). And I'm not just hinting at salacious young women (who probably receive the bulk of the dollar value). There's a streamer team who broadcast live at LAX and other airports and get excited about the various air traffic. It's fun watching their dedication and passion, their broadcasting skills grow, and how happy they are to do what they enjoy. I've donated probably $200-$300 over the years to them.
- hliyan 3y ago
  I've literally read several articles today (mostly via HN) from which I have garnered enough value to pay at least $1 to each author. And I'd gladly pay it, as long as it's not a subscription and I don't have to enter my card details all over the place, or have my money charged as a large number of individual transactions.
  - gosub100 3y ago
    Especially for micropayments. If I google and find a minor 1-liner that taught me something I'd deposit $0.10 or $0.25. If it was something I was struggling with for a long time - like some arcane tar or mt command to use my tape backup drive, I'd give at least a few $. These amounts add up quickly, and encourage a much more wholesome form of publishing.
- SleepilyLimping 3y ago
  This was kind of the theory of using Brave Browser to earn BAT through ads, and then set up an "auto-contribute" list that took your earned BAT and distributed a % that you set to each person. The adoption didn't exactly happen, especially with Brave's weirdness lately.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    I like the idea of BAT but I just don't fully trust it.
gspencley 3y ago
> and hopefully the recommendation algorithm would start to favor just good content over clickbait sellout garbage. My problem with recommendation algorithms, at least YouTube's, is that by design they recommend things based on keywords and categories for videos you have watched previously. So what happens is that I get hooked on some new topic, say cave diving for example. And then I watch a whole bunch of cave diving videos ... until I get sick of cave diving and want something different. But because of my viewing patterns, my recommendations are FLOODED with cave diving videos that I don't care about anymore. I don't know how to solve that problem. And it might even just be a "me" problem related to the way that my brain works.
- skydhash 3y ago
  Not just a "you" problem. I have to routinely reset my youtube history (I don't have time to prune it) to avoid stale recommendation. I have few interests, but every once in a while, I'm on a research spree or just want some new vibes, then my home view is ruined. If they are not getting rid of the algorithm, it would make sense to let me manage the keywords that are driving it.
  - silvestrov 3y ago
    I really want the ability to easily create multiple persons/personalities like Netflix lets you do. On Netflix I have a seperate "user" for asian movies so the main user is not flooded with recommendations for asian movies. Those 2 users have extremly different list of recommended movies. When I watch a few "The girl is doing her homework" music movies on YouTube they quickly drown out everything else on the homepage. When I later watch a few "watch later" engineering movies, the music videos are drowned out and I then have difficulty finding more music videos. It's like starting over from scratch every time.
    - ytytkk 3y ago
      You can create new channels and use each them just for viewing, from the YouTube account page: https://www.youtube.com/account https://www.youtube.com/account Works well to keep different viewing histories and commenting identities separated.
spacemadness 3y ago
This is giving me PTSD from using old online services like Quantum Link on the C64 and having my parents freak out on me for racking up a huge bill.

jrd259 3y ago

Ted Nelson's vision (in "Dream Machines") was strongly focused on micro-transactions for this reason.

teddyh 3y ago
To “nickel and dime”¹ is usually seen as a bad thing; to intentionally build it into our information infrastructure would probably be a horrible idea. 1. <https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=nickel_and_dime&oldid=76214410#Verb https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=nickel_and_dime&...>

Gulstar 3y ago

There is this Dutch company called Blendle that started out with this idea, the NY times even invested in it. But unfortunately it was not a viable model, so they switched to a all you can consume type of subscription like every other platform

pjc50 3y ago

We had per-use systems. I remember when people would pay multiple £ for one (1) phone ringtone. I think Minitel may have been per-use metered as well? Either way, both were obliterated by the massive benefit of not paying per use.

toyg 3y ago

> if it had asked for $0.25 The economics of credit-card transactions, unfortunately, make this fundamentally impossible.

mr_mitm 3y ago
I pay these tiny amounts by card all the time for public toilets, parking meters and the like.
- toyg 3y ago
  And it's why, when paying like that, you're typically paying more than would have done in cash, or the amount is high enough to cover the extra transaction fees. That's definitely the case for most UK carpark operators - the minimum amounts you can specify online are always higher than the ones for cash, because of transaction fees. You're probably also misjudging how tiny those amounts are. Vending machines, for example, nowadays don't really stock anything costing less than £0.50, if they take credit cards. Public toilets can often be £1 or £2.
robertlagrant 3y ago
This would have to be a "load up a wallet and 'pay'" sort of thing, where the website owner gets the money in aggregate minus a transaction fee when they request it.
red_admiral 3y ago
I can't reply to the child directly due to nesting, so I'll do it here: As far as I know, for in-person transactions ("contactless" in Europe) the economics work differently - for example SumUp quotes a flat fee of 1.69% plus a small one-time cost to buy and register the reader devices. That gets you parking meters, public toilets and the like. However, for online credit card transactions (which are a very different risk profile, to be fair) there's a fixed cost of something like $0.20 per transaction on top of the percentage fee. That is why, for example, substack has a minimum pricing tier of $5 for subscriptions, and why Patreon is "restructuring" because their original micropayments model wasn't breaking even. So I agree with the parent poster that microtransactions _online_ are currently infeasible - not fundamentally impossible (Visa/MasterCard/Amex/Diners etc. could bring in a new pricing model) but it is impossible for even the NYT to set up a workable "pay $0.50 to read this artice" tier at the moment. A kind of system where you micropay "on credit" and it's all billed once at the end of the month could, depending on the jurisdiction, make the service provider subject to regulation as a provider of financial services.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

carlosjobim 3y ago

You just spent much more than $1 of your time arguing against spending a dollar. You would never spend 25 cents to read an article, don't fool yourself. If that was an option, you'd invent another reason not to pay. Oh, I need to fold my laundry, no time to read this article.

renonce 3y ago

A social-first Internet makes sense but this is not going to be the way people do it. Let’s consider some models for rewarding content authors: 1. You are asked to pay before viewing the content. This incentivizes content owners to display clickbait titles but does not incentivize content quality. People will click through lots of interesting titles and have a hard time finding out the valuable ones. 2. You are asked to pay after viewing the content. This is similar to a donation - just look at the state of open-source software. Only a few geeks who understand the value of donation will pay. 3. You are asked to pay a subscription fee upfront, and the fee is split between all content owners that you did read. If you view YouTube, have you signed up for YouTube Premium? Why not? Do you trust YouTube not to hold your videos hostage and pay only a tiny bit of revenue to uploaders?

pjc50 3y ago

(I know it's bad HN to put two replies to a comment, but I found my prepared argument: The Problem With MicroPayments is MicroFraud) Unsolved, difficult problems of micropayments: pay before viewing: how do you know that the thing you're paying for is the thing that you're expecting? What if it's a rickroll or goatse? so do you give refunds a la steam? pay and adverts: double-dipping is very annoying pay and adverts: how do you know who you're paying? A page appears with a micropayment request, but how do you know you've not just paid the advertiser to view their ad? pay and frame: can you have multiple payees per displayed page? (this has good and bad ideas) pay and popups: it's going to be like those notification or app install modals, yet another annoyance for people to bounce off pay limits: contactless has a £30 limit here. Would you have the same payment system suitable for $.01 payments and $1000 payments? How easy is it to trick people into paying over the odds (see refunds)? pay and censors: who's excluded from the payment system? Why? Part 2: business model problems! getting money into the system is plagued by usual fraud problems of stolen card transactions for pure digital goods nobody wants to build a federated system; everyone wants to build a Play/Apple/Steam store where they take 30% winner-take-all effects are very strong Play store et al already exist, why not use that? Free substitute goods are just a click away Consumers will pirate anything no matter how cheap the original is No real consumer demand for micropayments => lemma from previous 3 items: market for online goods is efficient enough to drive all marginal prices to zero existing problem of the play store letting your kid spend all the money friction: it would be great if you didn't have to repeatedly approve things, such as a micropayment for every page of a webcomic archive. But blanket approval lets bad actors drain the jar or inattentive users waste it and then feel conned first most obvious model for making this work is porn, which is inevitably blacklisted by the payment processors, has a worse environment for fraud/chargebacks, and is toxic to VCs (see Patreon and even Craigslist) Internet has actually killed previously working "micropayment" systems such as Minitel, paid ringtones (anyone remember the dark era of Crazy Frog?); surviving ones like premium SMS and phone have a scammy, seedy feel. accounting requirements: do you have to pay VAT on that micropayment? do you have to declare it? Is it a federal offence to sell something to an Iranian or North Korean for one cent?