5 ms·

Voting with our wallets got us infowars and two major fake news groups of media (mainstream and not). Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy? So that i

Voting with our wallets got us infowars and two major fake news groups of media (mainstream and not). Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy? So that it's feasible to keep producing what you actually want. I just wish it were possible to pay $1 for an article whose headline sounds interesting, or someone recommended. Subscribe, even with a free trial? Pass. The free market is great. But we should not deny it when it leads to bad outcomes. If we do, then we're no better than those who say "real communism has never been tried".

bogwog 2y ago
The fake news situation, like all (well, most at least) failures of the free market are solvable with regulations. I don't think any rational person would disagree that it should be illegal to deliberately spread misinformation and lies. We banned selling cigarettes to minors, we banned drugs, we (theoretically) banned monopolies, and we should be able to ban fake news. But it is currently a political weapon being wielded by a political party. I don't expect that problem will be solved any time soon, but it's not fair to blame that on capitalism. Politicians ruin everything no matter what economic system they're in. > Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy? So that it's feasible to keep producing what you actually want. But I don't want ad supported journalism!
- knorker 2y ago
  > I don't think any rational person would disagree that it should be illegal to deliberately spread misinformation and lies. It's actually a very common opinion, because it always gets weaponized. It's not a new phenomenon. It's the reason for the whole idea of freedom of speech. It's not just R doing this (though they are... prolific users of it). Remember covid? Lab leak was politically incorrect as a lie, and banned, but has since been downgraded to "maybe". > But I don't want ad supported journalism! Me neither. But the choice may be between ad supported or none at all. But I hope we can find a viable third way.
- account42 2y ago
  > I don't think any rational person would disagree that it should be illegal to deliberately spread misinformation and lies. I would rather not let the goivernment decide what is the truth. A free and independent press as well as free speech in general is a very important check on government corruption that we should not get rid of even if it means tolerating some comparatively minor issues. "Fake news" is much better solved by teaching people to think critically and ensuring that they have the ability and will to deal with being subjected to deliberately wrong information no matter who it comes from. Unfortunately most school systems do the opposite of that, teaching instead to blindly follow authority and to accept whatever information is provided as fact. Same with current progressive culture in general, if you even dare question any of its dogma you are shunned. No individual though allowed.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >I don't think any rational person would disagree that it should be illegal to deliberately spread misinformation and lies. It's called "bait" and not "yellow journalism" for a reason. misleading is not the same as misinformation. It's a petty subsect of journalism that really isn't serious enough for any formal regulation to be made on.
mikeryan 2y ago
Infowars is an interesting example it’s (was) basically a health supplement company masquerading as a media company. Most of its ad load was selling supplements that it produced. All shadiness aside it’s an interesting model. Cuts a lot of the middlemen out.
Kye 2y ago
"I wish I could buy an article" is close to "I'd buy that on a t-shirt" on the sincere-not serious spectrum. Most people won't do it when it's offered. The few who do aren't enough to be worth implementing it.
- knorker 2y ago
  > Most people won't do it when it's offered. I hope this has actually been tested, and that this is not a (quite reasonable) assumption. (but per below, it's not easy to test) But when you say "most won't do it when it's offered", surely it has to be a higher percentage than people who choose to sign up for a subscription when offered? (though yes, a subscription will bring more revenue) I guess this mostly annoys me because I've personally never been offered. And I would. > The few who do aren't enough to be worth implementing it. Not only that, but also micro transactions are not very profitable, after CC fees. I still believe that a working standard micro transactions system would be great. It has a bootstrapping problem, though.
LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
There are so many articles which have 'interesting' clickbaity headlines, that I DO NOT WANT to pay even 1$/€ for every single one. Maybe 1 to 10ct, via legal microtransactions, not some cryptocurrencyshit. If they don't get that, and are too stupid to push for that, with all their journalistic force and might, maybe they aren't that important, and never were to begin with? Let them all burn in a bonfire of their very own.
- knorker 2y ago
  > There are so many articles which have 'interesting' clickbaity headlines Sure. But there are many good ones too. Not just random ones, but take FT or Economist. Several times a month I see a headline I'm interested in, and I do trust them to not bait-and-switch the article. Maybe I'd read it and conclude it was not worth it, but that's not the same thing. But they both want to sign me up for a subscription. No. I'll pay $1 to read this article if and only if this is the end of the interaction. So I end up paying them nothing, and not reading the article. (or someone with a subscription copy-pastes the content for me) > If they don't get that, and are too stupid to push for that, with all their journalistic force and might Maybe they're stupid. Maybe "I'm not the typical user". Maybe it's just not feasible for FT/Economist alone to implement what I'm asking for, because the micro payment infrastructure doesn't exist.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
    There is SEPA with instant payment in the European Union, which has to be available at no additional cost. Which in practice already works for micropayments, as can be seen by various entities booking 1ct to verify the validity of the account holder/data. Amazon does this, Aliexpress does it, many others already do this. Why can't the effing press/media do it? Similar applies to US-American ACH. But no, those r-tards always want to sell their bundles and abonnements.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>Voting with our wallets got us infowars and two major fake news groups of media yes. that's the cost of freedom. Stupidity is freedom as well. >Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy? I want good creators compensated for good stories. MBAs will get paid no matter what. that's sort of what they minmax for. And they don't care what industry they suck off of. >I just wish it were possible to pay $1 for an article whose headline sounds interesting, or someone recommended $1 for an article would be way overkill for 99.999% of the population. the microtransaction approach can't work because you really can't charge much more than a dollar for any digital transaction to begin with. You can always go for the "tokens" approach, but that's a much older and assumedly unpopular model. >The free market is great. But we should not deny it when it leads to bad outcomes. At the same time, denying the free market because it doesn't go the way we want just makes us sound hypocritcal. Fortunately, most results of this model do not give us scams and propoganda. There's enough to discuss without going into the fringes.
- knorker 2y ago
  >> Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy? > I want good creators compensated for good stories. I asked that rhetorically, and then immediately answered it. > I want good creators compensated for good stories. So do I. And yet they refuse to take my money. > $1 for an article would be way overkill for 99.999% of the population. Maybe. Maybe not. Yes, subjectively it'll feel that way to most people. But there are many out there who have a subscription for $5 a month where they consume none of the content. But I just pulled the price $1 out of my ass. $0.20, then? The Economist seems to cost $79 per year. If you charge $0.20 per article that's order of one article per day. And most people would not even be interested in one of their articles per week. Then tomorrow they can spend $0.20 at FT for another article, and so on. And at the end of the year, $79 has been sent to actual journalism, and the customer has received value. Now this potential customer just consumes nothing. Or worse: Twitter. > Stupidity is freedom as well. Differential pricing too. It annoys me that I'm not charged $1 per Economist article, since I am willing to pay.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >I asked that rhetorically, and then immediately answered it. Okay, I can still answer a question, especially if the framing is bad. >So do I. And yet they refuse to take my money. We don't get to choose how we pay for stuff. That's part of the deal. Maybe I want a slice of bread but I often need to buy a loaf. Maybe I want a bottle of ketchup but Costco only sells 2 giant vats. Again, blame Mastercard/Visa for your model not being popular. I mentioned as such in the previous response. You may have chosen a dollar arbitrarily, but you were kind of correct about that cost if we're talking per article purchases.

bogwog 2y ago

The fake news situation, like all (well, most at least) failures of the free market are solvable with regulations. I don't think any rational person would disagree that it should be illegal to deliberately spread misinformation and lies. We banned selling cigarettes to minors, we banned drugs, we (theoretically) banned monopolies, and we should be able to ban fake news. But it is currently a political weapon being wielded by a political party. I don't expect that problem will be solved any time soon, but it's not fair to blame that on capitalism. Politicians ruin everything no matter what economic system they're in. > Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy? So that it's feasible to keep producing what you actually want. But I don't want ad supported journalism!

knorker 2y ago
> I don't think any rational person would disagree that it should be illegal to deliberately spread misinformation and lies. It's actually a very common opinion, because it always gets weaponized. It's not a new phenomenon. It's the reason for the whole idea of freedom of speech. It's not just R doing this (though they are... prolific users of it). Remember covid? Lab leak was politically incorrect as a lie, and banned, but has since been downgraded to "maybe". > But I don't want ad supported journalism! Me neither. But the choice may be between ad supported or none at all. But I hope we can find a viable third way.
account42 2y ago
> I don't think any rational person would disagree that it should be illegal to deliberately spread misinformation and lies. I would rather not let the goivernment decide what is the truth. A free and independent press as well as free speech in general is a very important check on government corruption that we should not get rid of even if it means tolerating some comparatively minor issues. "Fake news" is much better solved by teaching people to think critically and ensuring that they have the ability and will to deal with being subjected to deliberately wrong information no matter who it comes from. Unfortunately most school systems do the opposite of that, teaching instead to blindly follow authority and to accept whatever information is provided as fact. Same with current progressive culture in general, if you even dare question any of its dogma you are shunned. No individual though allowed.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>I don't think any rational person would disagree that it should be illegal to deliberately spread misinformation and lies. It's called "bait" and not "yellow journalism" for a reason. misleading is not the same as misinformation. It's a petty subsect of journalism that really isn't serious enough for any formal regulation to be made on.

mikeryan 2y ago

Infowars is an interesting example it’s (was) basically a health supplement company masquerading as a media company. Most of its ad load was selling supplements that it produced. All shadiness aside it’s an interesting model. Cuts a lot of the middlemen out.

Kye 2y ago

"I wish I could buy an article" is close to "I'd buy that on a t-shirt" on the sincere-not serious spectrum. Most people won't do it when it's offered. The few who do aren't enough to be worth implementing it.

knorker 2y ago
> Most people won't do it when it's offered. I hope this has actually been tested, and that this is not a (quite reasonable) assumption. (but per below, it's not easy to test) But when you say "most won't do it when it's offered", surely it has to be a higher percentage than people who choose to sign up for a subscription when offered? (though yes, a subscription will bring more revenue) I guess this mostly annoys me because I've personally never been offered. And I would. > The few who do aren't enough to be worth implementing it. Not only that, but also micro transactions are not very profitable, after CC fees. I still believe that a working standard micro transactions system would be great. It has a bootstrapping problem, though.

LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago

There are so many articles which have 'interesting' clickbaity headlines, that I DO NOT WANT to pay even 1$/€ for every single one. Maybe 1 to 10ct, via legal microtransactions, not some cryptocurrencyshit. If they don't get that, and are too stupid to push for that, with all their journalistic force and might, maybe they aren't that important, and never were to begin with? Let them all burn in a bonfire of their very own.

knorker 2y ago
> There are so many articles which have 'interesting' clickbaity headlines Sure. But there are many good ones too. Not just random ones, but take FT or Economist. Several times a month I see a headline I'm interested in, and I do trust them to not bait-and-switch the article. Maybe I'd read it and conclude it was not worth it, but that's not the same thing. But they both want to sign me up for a subscription. No. I'll pay $1 to read this article if and only if this is the end of the interaction. So I end up paying them nothing, and not reading the article. (or someone with a subscription copy-pastes the content for me) > If they don't get that, and are too stupid to push for that, with all their journalistic force and might Maybe they're stupid. Maybe "I'm not the typical user". Maybe it's just not feasible for FT/Economist alone to implement what I'm asking for, because the micro payment infrastructure doesn't exist.
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
  There is SEPA with instant payment in the European Union, which has to be available at no additional cost. Which in practice already works for micropayments, as can be seen by various entities booking 1ct to verify the validity of the account holder/data. Amazon does this, Aliexpress does it, many others already do this. Why can't the effing press/media do it? Similar applies to US-American ACH. But no, those r-tards always want to sell their bundles and abonnements.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

>Voting with our wallets got us infowars and two major fake news groups of media yes. that's the cost of freedom. Stupidity is freedom as well. >Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy? I want good creators compensated for good stories. MBAs will get paid no matter what. that's sort of what they minmax for. And they don't care what industry they suck off of. >I just wish it were possible to pay $1 for an article whose headline sounds interesting, or someone recommended $1 for an article would be way overkill for 99.999% of the population. the microtransaction approach can't work because you really can't charge much more than a dollar for any digital transaction to begin with. You can always go for the "tokens" approach, but that's a much older and assumedly unpopular model. >The free market is great. But we should not deny it when it leads to bad outcomes. At the same time, denying the free market because it doesn't go the way we want just makes us sound hypocritcal. Fortunately, most results of this model do not give us scams and propoganda. There's enough to discuss without going into the fringes.

knorker 2y ago
>> Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy? > I want good creators compensated for good stories. I asked that rhetorically, and then immediately answered it. > I want good creators compensated for good stories. So do I. And yet they refuse to take my money. > $1 for an article would be way overkill for 99.999% of the population. Maybe. Maybe not. Yes, subjectively it'll feel that way to most people. But there are many out there who have a subscription for $5 a month where they consume none of the content. But I just pulled the price $1 out of my ass. $0.20, then? The Economist seems to cost $79 per year. If you charge $0.20 per article that's order of one article per day. And most people would not even be interested in one of their articles per week. Then tomorrow they can spend $0.20 at FT for another article, and so on. And at the end of the year, $79 has been sent to actual journalism, and the customer has received value. Now this potential customer just consumes nothing. Or worse: Twitter. > Stupidity is freedom as well. Differential pricing too. It annoys me that I'm not charged $1 per Economist article, since I am willing to pay.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >I asked that rhetorically, and then immediately answered it. Okay, I can still answer a question, especially if the framing is bad. >So do I. And yet they refuse to take my money. We don't get to choose how we pay for stuff. That's part of the deal. Maybe I want a slice of bread but I often need to buy a loaf. Maybe I want a bottle of ketchup but Costco only sells 2 giant vats. Again, blame Mastercard/Visa for your model not being popular. I mentioned as such in the previous response. You may have chosen a dollar arbitrarily, but you were kind of correct about that cost if we're talking per article purchases.