3 ms·
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 e
by 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 agoNewspapers 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 agoSeems 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.