> What if, hear me out, micropayments are a bad solution in total? Micropayments are clearly theoretically better than a patronage model, and there's very litt

> What if, hear me out, micropayments are a bad solution in total? Micropayments are clearly theoretically better than a patronage model, and there's very little evidence to suggest that they're either bad or good, so no, there's no reason to believe that they're a bad solution. > I have not seen anyone actually demonstrate that a micropayment based system This is a fallacious argument. It simply makes no sense - there's a metric ton of historical evidence that good ideas can fail to materialize either because the technology doesn't exist yet, or because of cultural factors immaterial to the validity of the idea. > Instead it always seems to be driven by hyper-free market woo and ideology, as if that has worked out so far. This statement is anti-capitalist drivel without any substance or intelligence behind it, meant to manipulate, with very little truth behind even the implication that micropayments are "hyper-free market" constructs, and a repetition of the earlier fallacy that "not currently successful = bad idea". Micropayments are a pretty clearly better system than patronage. It scales better (smaller creators are more accurately rewarded for what they produce, instead of the largest creators getting a disproportionately large fraction of revenue), it's fairer to the creators (as their work gets directly rewarded, instead of them effectively having to beg for patronage), it's more sustainable (as creators are rewarded for all of the content that they've produced, instead of just the most recent), it's less guilt-inducing for consumers (who don't need to worry about whether or not their $1/month donation is "fair"), it naturally rate-limits consumers and helps them quantify and/or limit their entertainment time and/or spending, and it allows consumers to "own" their media more.