3 ms·

I share your annoyance. I've convinced that the sites themselves are doing this to attract subscribers. Every time anyone complains you get the backlash of "if

by oniony 2y ago

I share your annoyance. I've convinced that the sites themselves are doing this to attract subscribers. Every time anyone complains you get the backlash of "if you want good journalism you have to pay for it", yet few can afford to subscribe to more than one or two publications and yet we have to suffer paywalled links from all of them. For me, the one UK publication I pay for is enough (and that one is, ironically, not even paywalled).

echelon 2y ago
It's a distribution and friction problem. We solved it for music. We need the same for journalism. Microtransactions never took off, so that leaves one option: journalism companies need to stop having their own websites and instead publish to an aggregator (or aggregators) that handle payment and monetization. Spotify or Netflix for news. But perhaps that would turn them into an even lower margin business with no ownership of their own audience relationship. Doesn't seem like a fun business to be in. Nevertheless, it's still a distribution and friction problem.
- pluc 2y ago
  The model does not work. Nobody wants to subscribe to read one article in a blue moon, so we "pirate" it using archival sites. Piracy gave us DRM and streaming, archival will give us something new eventually, when they realize it doesn't work.
- crooked-v 2y ago
  Apple News+ is kind of that, but has the basic issue that paid articles are still stuffed with ads, which makes it pretty pointless.
- jjmarr 2y ago
  That already happened, except Reddit, Facebook, and Hacker News don't pay for the content they aggregate. People dodge paywalls in the comments, and many don't even bother to read the story. What would a paid solution offer over that? My cool idea would be an aggregator that charges people a subscription fee to participate and read stories. $100/month and extremely heavy (paid) moderation that forces people to engage with the articles. The price point helps get rid of anyone who is unwilling to participate constructively. Revenue-sharing for commenters as well. Make it the place where real discussions happen. People are social creatures and want to join exclusive clubs.

by oniony 2y ago

echelon 2y ago

It's a distribution and friction problem. We solved it for music. We need the same for journalism. Microtransactions never took off, so that leaves one option: journalism companies need to stop having their own websites and instead publish to an aggregator (or aggregators) that handle payment and monetization. Spotify or Netflix for news. But perhaps that would turn them into an even lower margin business with no ownership of their own audience relationship. Doesn't seem like a fun business to be in. Nevertheless, it's still a distribution and friction problem.

pluc 2y ago
The model does not work. Nobody wants to subscribe to read one article in a blue moon, so we "pirate" it using archival sites. Piracy gave us DRM and streaming, archival will give us something new eventually, when they realize it doesn't work.
crooked-v 2y ago
Apple News+ is kind of that, but has the basic issue that paid articles are still stuffed with ads, which makes it pretty pointless.
jjmarr 2y ago
That already happened, except Reddit, Facebook, and Hacker News don't pay for the content they aggregate. People dodge paywalls in the comments, and many don't even bother to read the story. What would a paid solution offer over that? My cool idea would be an aggregator that charges people a subscription fee to participate and read stories. $100/month and extremely heavy (paid) moderation that forces people to engage with the articles. The price point helps get rid of anyone who is unwilling to participate constructively. Revenue-sharing for commenters as well. Make it the place where real discussions happen. People are social creatures and want to join exclusive clubs.