3 ms·

I was a happy user of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor until it got shutdown. The pricing was

by yegle 2y ago

I was a happy user of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor until it got shutdown. The pricing was surprisingly low, $5/month can eliminate ads on most of the websites that I view, while the owner will not have a reduced ads revenue.

notRobot 2y ago
I never knew that was a thing! Of course they killed it. I wish they still had it. I would definitely subscribe.
karlgkk 2y ago
Apple made this, Apple News. It works great. Google could totally pull something like this off
joe_the_user 2y ago
Wow, yes, I would have joined. I dreamed of such a thing but also had a theory why it could never be. Now, I'm not sure if the theory is true (though the shutdown might prove it true). But this is it: Newspapers and magazines want subscribers much more than they want revenues. Especially, while newspapers certainly seek revenue, another key function for a newspaper is to influence public opinion in the direction prefered by their owners. In the US, most small towns have newspapers owned by the leading families. The paper is valuable to that family if it's being read by the locals and the paper making money is nice but secondary.
- CobrastanJorji 2y ago
  It's worse than that. Your theory is probably true for BAD content. Newspapers that exist to spread lies or just opinions that favor some narrative are primarily driven to get as many eyes on their cheap propaganda as possible. The whole point of propaganda is to show it to as many people as possible. GOOD content, though, is expensive to make, and while the creators would absolutely love it if everyone read it, their primary need is the ability to keep producing it. There are fewer billionaires paying to keep them in business, and if there were, they'd mostly likely start falling into being the bad kind of content. So you end up in this situation where all of the true, high qualify information is behind paywalls, and all the bullshit propaganda masquerading as information is freely available to all.
- thyrsus 2y ago
  There was a trope five years ago that small town papers had become economically infeasible, e.g. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/decline-of-newspapers-leaves-many-communities-in-the-dark/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/decline-of-newspapers-leaves-ma... My own town (60,000+) lost its paper more than ten years ago. Was that not the general experience?
  - joe_the_user 2y ago
    Well, I wouldn't want to claim that every small town paper would keep going regardless of profits. Just that a fair number of considerations exist other than profit. Consider why Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post, for example. That said, my small town's paper is going strong - it serves two cities of 12,000 and 3,000 people in a county of a little less than 100K. https://www.theunion.com/ https://www.theunion.com/

by yegle 2y ago

notRobot 2y ago

I never knew that was a thing! Of course they killed it. I wish they still had it. I would definitely subscribe.

karlgkk 2y ago

Apple made this, Apple News. It works great. Google could totally pull something like this off

joe_the_user 2y ago

Wow, yes, I would have joined. I dreamed of such a thing but also had a theory why it could never be. Now, I'm not sure if the theory is true (though the shutdown might prove it true). But this is it: Newspapers and magazines want subscribers much more than they want revenues. Especially, while newspapers certainly seek revenue, another key function for a newspaper is to influence public opinion in the direction prefered by their owners. In the US, most small towns have newspapers owned by the leading families. The paper is valuable to that family if it's being read by the locals and the paper making money is nice but secondary.

CobrastanJorji 2y ago
It's worse than that. Your theory is probably true for BAD content. Newspapers that exist to spread lies or just opinions that favor some narrative are primarily driven to get as many eyes on their cheap propaganda as possible. The whole point of propaganda is to show it to as many people as possible. GOOD content, though, is expensive to make, and while the creators would absolutely love it if everyone read it, their primary need is the ability to keep producing it. There are fewer billionaires paying to keep them in business, and if there were, they'd mostly likely start falling into being the bad kind of content. So you end up in this situation where all of the true, high qualify information is behind paywalls, and all the bullshit propaganda masquerading as information is freely available to all.
thyrsus 2y ago
There was a trope five years ago that small town papers had become economically infeasible, e.g. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/decline-of-newspapers-leaves-many-communities-in-the-dark/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/decline-of-newspapers-leaves-ma... My own town (60,000+) lost its paper more than ten years ago. Was that not the general experience?
- joe_the_user 2y ago
  Well, I wouldn't want to claim that every small town paper would keep going regardless of profits. Just that a fair number of considerations exist other than profit. Consider why Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post, for example. That said, my small town's paper is going strong - it serves two cities of 12,000 and 3,000 people in a county of a little less than 100K. https://www.theunion.com/ https://www.theunion.com/