4 ms·

I agree with you. Where the gap lies for me is that I can’t just buy one meal, I have to sign up for the yearly meal plan even if I just want one meal. A few y

I agree with you. Where the gap lies for me is that I can’t just buy one meal, I have to sign up for the yearly meal plan even if I just want one meal. A few years ago I tracked how many times I visited some of the various paywalls sites for their articles, and typically it was between 5-10 times per year. One was 30, so I paid for a subscription to them, but I can’t justify several dozens of dollars for 5 articles on many other sites. If I can’t access their content because a bypass doesn’t work then so be it, however I wasn’t willing to pay for that content either. I feel like it’s the classic misconception regarding piracy by the movie industry - I wasn’t willing to pay money for it in the first place, so it’s not lost revenue (unfortunately). I was actually discussing this overall problem with my wife the other day, and I came to the conclusion that I basically want a “Netflix” but for news - I subscribe to one place and I get access to a whole range of publications. That’s worth it to me. I very much don’t see it happening though, sadly.

protocolture 2y ago
Really someone just needs to spotify this shit. Scrape everything and hand out pennies based on who attracted what eyesballs.
- querez 2y ago
  The problem is that this might end with a bad incentive structure that I think would lead to bad quality: it would push you to write the kind of articles that everyone wants to click on/pay for. So mostly clickbait. Emotional content instead of factual one. It's unlikely that this could finance the long-term, high-quality investigative journalism that actually defines high quality journals.
  - cjs_ac 2y ago
    Newspapers have been dealing with this issue since the nineteenth century. I don't know how things work where you are in the world, but in the UK and Australia, newspapers are separated into broadsheets which have better-quality journalism and tabloids which are clickbait nonsense. (The terms come from the paper sizes they used to be printed on.) In the UK, the tabloids are further divided by the colours of their mastheads: the black-tops are less sensational; the red-tops are more sensational.
  - protocolture 2y ago
    Seems like thats how the market is currently structured. Most of those paywalled sites are already dishing out endless streams of emotive bs. What I want, is the ability to not pay a subscription that includes the emotive bs, but to read only the content I want.
- etc-hosts 2y ago
  It is the opinion of every musical artist that even extremely popular artists on Spotify make enough to buy a few boxes of graham crackers.
  - protocolture 2y ago
    Yes. My understanding is that Spotify is reliant on a system used for radio broadcasts. Paying pennies to broadcast songs was already the structure. Artists make their money from merch and live gigs as it always has been. But now they can also target me for advertising based on the bands I listen to, to sell me merch and live gigs. Back to newspapers. Traditionally if a news paper article takes my fancy I pay a small fee to access that paper and not establish a long term subscription for just that paper. A spotify type service could easily hand out credits in the same way.
bruce511 2y ago
I'll counter your one meal vs subscription analogy with another; I don't want to buy this Ferrari, I just want to drive it for the day. The dealership wasn't interested (they directed me to a different business with a different business model.) Yes you want a Netflix for news. But even Netflix isn't enough. You also need Amazon, Disney+, Apple TV and so on. Indeed, all of them are only partially aggregating - much of throw content (if not all of it) is in-house production. Yes micro payments per article would be nice, but endless startups have proved this approach works for neither suppliers nor consumers. There's no place to rent a Ferrari in my town. That doesn't make it ok to just "borrow" the dealers one. The world does not have to magically conform to our desires, our ethics. Sometimes we can't get what we want, and just taking it anyway is not ok
- Daneel_ 2y ago
  Supercar hire businesses do exist though, and I can certainly rent one for a day in many places all over the world. Regarding Netflix - I’m referring to OG Netflix which really did seem to aggregate everything under one subscription. In any case, I do agree that micro transactions for articles mostly do fail, hence my leaning towards a more “Netflix”-style approach that lowers the risk for consumers. I don’t expect to get what I want here, but publishers also can’t simply get what they want either.
  - bruce511 2y ago
    Yes super-car rentals exist, but only in a small number of locations. My point was that not having one conveniently available doesn't make alternative approaches ok. An aggregator like the original Netflix would be nice but I suspect that model would not work for long. (As evidenced by current Netflix et al). Publishers can certainly do anything they like with their content, and they set the rules for accessing it. Assuming what they want is piles of money, I expect they take that into account when setting the rules. But it's their content. You don't get to break the rules just because you don't like them.
    - immibis 2y ago

protocolture 2y ago

Really someone just needs to spotify this shit. Scrape everything and hand out pennies based on who attracted what eyesballs.

querez 2y ago
The problem is that this might end with a bad incentive structure that I think would lead to bad quality: it would push you to write the kind of articles that everyone wants to click on/pay for. So mostly clickbait. Emotional content instead of factual one. It's unlikely that this could finance the long-term, high-quality investigative journalism that actually defines high quality journals.
- cjs_ac 2y ago
  Newspapers have been dealing with this issue since the nineteenth century. I don't know how things work where you are in the world, but in the UK and Australia, newspapers are separated into broadsheets which have better-quality journalism and tabloids which are clickbait nonsense. (The terms come from the paper sizes they used to be printed on.) In the UK, the tabloids are further divided by the colours of their mastheads: the black-tops are less sensational; the red-tops are more sensational.
- protocolture 2y ago
  Seems like thats how the market is currently structured. Most of those paywalled sites are already dishing out endless streams of emotive bs. What I want, is the ability to not pay a subscription that includes the emotive bs, but to read only the content I want.
etc-hosts 2y ago
It is the opinion of every musical artist that even extremely popular artists on Spotify make enough to buy a few boxes of graham crackers.
- protocolture 2y ago
  Yes. My understanding is that Spotify is reliant on a system used for radio broadcasts. Paying pennies to broadcast songs was already the structure. Artists make their money from merch and live gigs as it always has been. But now they can also target me for advertising based on the bands I listen to, to sell me merch and live gigs. Back to newspapers. Traditionally if a news paper article takes my fancy I pay a small fee to access that paper and not establish a long term subscription for just that paper. A spotify type service could easily hand out credits in the same way.

bruce511 2y ago

I'll counter your one meal vs subscription analogy with another; I don't want to buy this Ferrari, I just want to drive it for the day. The dealership wasn't interested (they directed me to a different business with a different business model.) Yes you want a Netflix for news. But even Netflix isn't enough. You also need Amazon, Disney+, Apple TV and so on. Indeed, all of them are only partially aggregating - much of throw content (if not all of it) is in-house production. Yes micro payments per article would be nice, but endless startups have proved this approach works for neither suppliers nor consumers. There's no place to rent a Ferrari in my town. That doesn't make it ok to just "borrow" the dealers one. The world does not have to magically conform to our desires, our ethics. Sometimes we can't get what we want, and just taking it anyway is not ok

Daneel_ 2y ago
Supercar hire businesses do exist though, and I can certainly rent one for a day in many places all over the world. Regarding Netflix - I’m referring to OG Netflix which really did seem to aggregate everything under one subscription. In any case, I do agree that micro transactions for articles mostly do fail, hence my leaning towards a more “Netflix”-style approach that lowers the risk for consumers. I don’t expect to get what I want here, but publishers also can’t simply get what they want either.
- bruce511 2y ago
  Yes super-car rentals exist, but only in a small number of locations. My point was that not having one conveniently available doesn't make alternative approaches ok. An aggregator like the original Netflix would be nice but I suspect that model would not work for long. (As evidenced by current Netflix et al). Publishers can certainly do anything they like with their content, and they set the rules for accessing it. Assuming what they want is piles of money, I expect they take that into account when setting the rules. But it's their content. You don't get to break the rules just because you don't like them.
  - immibis 2y ago