14 ms·

Just make it financially infeasible. Spam and psych warfare require an abundance of inexpensive data channels for millions of sockpuppets and AIs. If people r

Just make it financially infeasible. Spam and psych warfare require an abundance of inexpensive data channels for millions of sockpuppets and AIs. If people really care about quality web content, they'll have to actually value it by paying for it. That, and content will need to be curated; algorithmic feeds were never very good to begin with, and they will only get worse, thus they should be abandoned. But people think it's an offense to pay $3 a month for X (Musks insufferableness notwithstanding), so slop is what they shall continue to receive.

troupo 3y ago
> Just make it financially infeasible. > But people think it's an offense to pay $3 a month for X $3 a month, or $8 a month, or $15 a month does not stop spam or advertising or bots as long as the profit is larger than that.
- _chu1 3y ago
  How does spam make money if it isn't advertising anything, and even if it is who's paying for "The free interaction is great, but I love the best casino games on onlineslots.fun, amazing ever and I always love win cold hard cash 100% with no credit card sign up trial. Payday loans online." to be spammed on every old phpBB/SMF forum or article comment section crawled on the web?
  - troupo 3y ago
    > but I love the best casino games on onlineslots.fun > no credit card sign up trial. Payday loans online This is advertisement and scams. As long as there are enough suckers clicking through and leaving money at onlineslots.fun, spam will continue.
- ravenstine 3y ago
  I didn't say that content should cost $3 to stop spam. My point was clearly that not enough people aren't even willing to pay that. That price was in reference to what people value. If people value fun web content that's not currently being served to them, they should pay something for it. The vast majority of people simply won't, even if they're spending 1/5 their paycheck on Starbucks. If you think I wouldn't pay for HN if I had no other choice, you'd be mistaken. But if no one is willing to spend hundreds a year for web content that is not dominated by spam, ads, bots, etc., then spam, ads, and bots is what they will get.
  - troupo 3y ago
    > But if no one is willing to spend hundreds a year for web content that is not dominated by spam, ads, bots, etc., then spam, ads, and bots is what they will get. Of course no one is willing to do that. For me to spend hundreds a year on any content, that content has to be valuable. If all you can guarantee is that there "won't be bots and spam", that is not enough.
    - ravenstine 3y ago
      Like I said, then slop is what they shall get.
fullshark 3y ago
I think we have learned a lot of people don't care about quality web content, that wasn't clear in the initial stages of the internet.
- hinkley 3y ago
  The lesson of Apple, if there is one, is that you can get at least 70% of your potential margins from 10% of people. The web has become all about pandering. But there are people finding success through cultivating instead of pandering. (I don't know if many Patreon users fit this description, but I'm sure that population is > 0)

troupo 3y ago

> Just make it financially infeasible. > But people think it's an offense to pay $3 a month for X $3 a month, or $8 a month, or $15 a month does not stop spam or advertising or bots as long as the profit is larger than that.

_chu1 3y ago
How does spam make money if it isn't advertising anything, and even if it is who's paying for "The free interaction is great, but I love the best casino games on onlineslots.fun, amazing ever and I always love win cold hard cash 100% with no credit card sign up trial. Payday loans online." to be spammed on every old phpBB/SMF forum or article comment section crawled on the web?
- troupo 3y ago
  > but I love the best casino games on onlineslots.fun > no credit card sign up trial. Payday loans online This is advertisement and scams. As long as there are enough suckers clicking through and leaving money at onlineslots.fun, spam will continue.
ravenstine 3y ago
I didn't say that content should cost $3 to stop spam. My point was clearly that not enough people aren't even willing to pay that. That price was in reference to what people value. If people value fun web content that's not currently being served to them, they should pay something for it. The vast majority of people simply won't, even if they're spending 1/5 their paycheck on Starbucks. If you think I wouldn't pay for HN if I had no other choice, you'd be mistaken. But if no one is willing to spend hundreds a year for web content that is not dominated by spam, ads, bots, etc., then spam, ads, and bots is what they will get.
- troupo 3y ago
  > But if no one is willing to spend hundreds a year for web content that is not dominated by spam, ads, bots, etc., then spam, ads, and bots is what they will get. Of course no one is willing to do that. For me to spend hundreds a year on any content, that content has to be valuable. If all you can guarantee is that there "won't be bots and spam", that is not enough.
  - ravenstine 3y ago
    Like I said, then slop is what they shall get.

fullshark 3y ago

I think we have learned a lot of people don't care about quality web content, that wasn't clear in the initial stages of the internet.

hinkley 3y ago
The lesson of Apple, if there is one, is that you can get at least 70% of your potential margins from 10% of people. The web has become all about pandering. But there are people finding success through cultivating instead of pandering. (I don't know if many Patreon users fit this description, but I'm sure that population is > 0)