3 ms·

[flagged]

randerson 1y ago
I’d actually prefer spending a few pennies to read an article vs. the status quo of being inundated with ads and trackers.
- thrown-0825-1 1y ago
  This argument is the endgame of the chef slowly boiling the frog.
- swarnie 1y ago
  Big business: Why not both?
lifty 1y ago
Isn’t that better than advertising? Of course, there’s the cognitive burden of micro payments (https://nakamotoinstitute.org/library/the-mental-accounting-barrier-to-micropayments/ https://nakamotoinstitute.org/library/the-mental-accounting-...) so not sure it will catch on. But for agents it might.
- spwa4 1y ago
  No. It isn't. Here's what happened to all the micropayments network platforms that competed with the internet: The gatekeepers (telecoms) first decided they were going to publish things themselves too, which had zero success, then to pay themselves more than anyone on the platform, then when that still didn't work they kicked everyone else off the platform with various excuses (porn, crime, getting money from outside the platform, promoting non-sanctioned shows, ... the big thing that was successful were mail and chatrooms) The problem is that these companies were always willing (after a short while) to damage the economics of the infrastructure as a whole, just to increase their own share (for example per-email charges). Eventually they had close to 100% ... of nothing. And the irony is that because of these companies constantly trying to move into content and apps, destroying their own system more and more by crude attempts to force people into their content the only thing that remains of these systems ... is publishers. They couldn't really improve their apps, since that cost them money. They quickly discovered to use money as a way to avoid friction on their apps ... and then no business leader ever approved removing friction anywhere. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL
  - polotics 1y ago
    I can vouch for this fact: an hallucinatory moment when a manager defended the logic of pay-per-email...
vasco 1y ago
> Business agents could be instructed to pay suppliers when a delivery is confirmed. What could go wrong?
dist-epoch 1y ago
The consensus on HN is that "if you are not paying, you are the product". Now you'll pay, and you'll not be the product anymore. Right?
- raspyberr 1y ago
  Look up how logical implication works
andrepd 1y ago
Grimmer than paying with your soul? With targeting kids with ads for gambling, ultra-rightwing podcssters, and fucked up sexual content? I find it hard to believe.
_jsmh 1y ago
I built five different apps that pay-per-use with microtransactions and users were uninterested. The key reason I think is, and something one user stated to me explicitly, is that microtransactions change interactions from a social gratis model to a business transaction.

[flagged]

I’d actually prefer spending a few pennies to read an article vs. the status quo of being inundated with ads and trackers.

thrown-0825-1 1y ago
This argument is the endgame of the chef slowly boiling the frog.
swarnie 1y ago
Big business: Why not both?

lifty 1y ago

Isn’t that better than advertising? Of course, there’s the cognitive burden of micro payments (https://nakamotoinstitute.org/library/the-mental-accounting-barrier-to-micropayments/ https://nakamotoinstitute.org/library/the-mental-accounting-...) so not sure it will catch on. But for agents it might.

spwa4 1y ago
No. It isn't. Here's what happened to all the micropayments network platforms that competed with the internet: The gatekeepers (telecoms) first decided they were going to publish things themselves too, which had zero success, then to pay themselves more than anyone on the platform, then when that still didn't work they kicked everyone else off the platform with various excuses (porn, crime, getting money from outside the platform, promoting non-sanctioned shows, ... the big thing that was successful were mail and chatrooms) The problem is that these companies were always willing (after a short while) to damage the economics of the infrastructure as a whole, just to increase their own share (for example per-email charges). Eventually they had close to 100% ... of nothing. And the irony is that because of these companies constantly trying to move into content and apps, destroying their own system more and more by crude attempts to force people into their content the only thing that remains of these systems ... is publishers. They couldn't really improve their apps, since that cost them money. They quickly discovered to use money as a way to avoid friction on their apps ... and then no business leader ever approved removing friction anywhere. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL
- polotics 1y ago
  I can vouch for this fact: an hallucinatory moment when a manager defended the logic of pay-per-email...

vasco 1y ago

> Business agents could be instructed to pay suppliers when a delivery is confirmed. What could go wrong?

dist-epoch 1y ago

The consensus on HN is that "if you are not paying, you are the product". Now you'll pay, and you'll not be the product anymore. Right?

raspyberr 1y ago
Look up how logical implication works

andrepd 1y ago

Grimmer than paying with your soul? With targeting kids with ads for gambling, ultra-rightwing podcssters, and fucked up sexual content? I find it hard to believe.

_jsmh 1y ago

I built five different apps that pay-per-use with microtransactions and users were uninterested. The key reason I think is, and something one user stated to me explicitly, is that microtransactions change interactions from a social gratis model to a business transaction.