7 ms·

> So how do we know this, empirically? as in, because the microtransactions mechanisms already exist, and has been successfully monetized in other areas. The f

by chii 1y ago

> So how do we know this, empirically? as in, because the microtransactions mechanisms already exist, and has been successfully monetized in other areas. The fact that news publishers don't use it (and opt for subscribers instead) is an indication that it doesnt work.

mrguyorama 1y ago
Well no, it's not necessarily an indication it "doesn't work", that's only one possible indication. It could also indicate that News companies make more money from a tiny number of subscribers than whoever would pay microtransactions, or it could indicate that the News companies BELIEVE that to be true whether it actually is or not. It could also indicate that the news "industry" has been utterly decimated and destroyed and defunded over the past 50 years and they don't really have the cashflow to play around and experiment with business strategies because they are desperately hanging on as it is and have all sorts of data showing them that they will never have the business they had 50 years ago no matter what because the simple reality is that humans prefer listening to a moronic talking head not ask hard questions over actual journalism anyway.
- chii 1y ago
  > It could also indicate that News companies make more money from a tiny number of subscribers than whoever would pay microtransactions which is exactly what "doesn't work" means - not enough revenue from microtransations compared to another avenue (such as subscription + adverts). > they don't really have the cashflow to play around and experiment with business strategies i suppose that's possible as well - but some news outlets do have sufficient revenue to experiment, and they either hadnt, or have and found it wanting. > not ask hard questions over actual journalism that has nothing to do with the funding model. You're conflating separate concerns - one being a business concern, and one being a civic concern.
selfhoster11 1y ago
Really? Then how do I send half a cent to an arbitrary recipient without having to pay a fee?

by chii 1y ago

mrguyorama 1y ago

Well no, it's not necessarily an indication it "doesn't work", that's only one possible indication. It could also indicate that News companies make more money from a tiny number of subscribers than whoever would pay microtransactions, or it could indicate that the News companies BELIEVE that to be true whether it actually is or not. It could also indicate that the news "industry" has been utterly decimated and destroyed and defunded over the past 50 years and they don't really have the cashflow to play around and experiment with business strategies because they are desperately hanging on as it is and have all sorts of data showing them that they will never have the business they had 50 years ago no matter what because the simple reality is that humans prefer listening to a moronic talking head not ask hard questions over actual journalism anyway.

chii 1y ago
> It could also indicate that News companies make more money from a tiny number of subscribers than whoever would pay microtransactions which is exactly what "doesn't work" means - not enough revenue from microtransations compared to another avenue (such as subscription + adverts). > they don't really have the cashflow to play around and experiment with business strategies i suppose that's possible as well - but some news outlets do have sufficient revenue to experiment, and they either hadnt, or have and found it wanting. > not ask hard questions over actual journalism that has nothing to do with the funding model. You're conflating separate concerns - one being a business concern, and one being a civic concern.

selfhoster11 1y ago

Really? Then how do I send half a cent to an arbitrary recipient without having to pay a fee?