5 ms·

I wonder if there is a viable business model where for each article, readers can pay to unlock it not just for themselves, but for everyone. The price would obv

by chongli 8mo ago

I wonder if there is a viable business model where for each article, readers can pay to unlock it not just for themselves, but for everyone. The price would obviously have to be higher since you aren't just buying it for yourself. But perhaps the sense of "I'm helping build a better-informed world and helping broadcast my values" would encourage people to pay that higher price. What you're asking for is the system we already have, except at a micro level rather than a macro level. Rich people buy out newspapers to signal-boost their own preferred messages to the public. I think it's questionable that the "news that people feel is actually valuable" is what really ought to be spread. Some of the most valuable news is local reporting on the daily business of municipal governments. Regular people are notoriously uninterested in local politics, despite the outsized impact it has on their lives. Many of the most mundane decisions made in municipal councils go completely unnoticed yet they can destroy whole communities in the long run.

munificent 8mo ago
> Rich people buy out newspapers to signal-boost their own preferred messages to the public. Right, but micro level difference matters here. If a middle-class person can help an important story reach an audience, that's helpful for democracy. When a billionaire buys a newspaper, it isn't. This is also why I think suggesting it work like a kickstarter where multiple people can pool money to unlock an article would be helpful. It naturally collects the will of many people in a democratic way.
- chongli 8mo ago
  This is basically political fundraising, where rich people signal-boost their preferred candidate and help them attract lots of donors from the public. I think the fundamental piece you're missing is the Pareto principle. In any popularity contest, the most attention accrues to the most popular. This naturally leads to a power law distribution in popularity.
  - judahmeek 8mo ago
    I'm actually wondering if Citizens United will prove to be a stabilizing force. https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/18/politics/texas-senate-primary-cornyn-paxton-hunt-crockett-talarico https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/18/politics/texas-senate-primary... shows that, in this year's Texas race, the centrists are getting more funding than the culture warriors even though the culture warriors are more popular. Granted, that's only a single data point.
- kelseyfrog 8mo ago
  It sounds quite aligned with how assurance contracts[1] work. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contract
derektank 8mo ago
>Many of the most mundane decisions made in municipal councils go completely unnoticed yet they can destroy whole communities in the long run. They go unnoticed because of scaling issues, not because people are per se less interested in local politics than national politics. If you write a story about a decision on the local city council, it is of interest to maybe a few hundred thousand, whereas a story about Congress is of interest to tens of millions. Even if people were ten times as interested in local news (as measured by their willingness to subscribe or the amount of ads they are willing to be exposed to), it would still make more sense to send a reporter to the Capitol before City Hall.
- chongli 8mo ago
  I think a lot of our issues today are because people are too engaged in federal politics. It's turned into a massive spectacle on the same level as the NFL.
  - roysting 8mo ago
    That seems to be the point; WWE USA: Blue Team vs Red Team, The Democracy Simulation Show. Everyone has the same and equal meaningless vote.
    - mschuster91 8mo ago
      > Everyone has the same and equal meaningless vote. There is one vote that is not meaningless: the primaries. A lot of the issues y'all have is that Democrats and Republicans alike don't bother to vote in the primaries. That is how you got people like MTG or Trump, that is how you get people like Chuck Schumer stuck in office for far too long. AOC/The Squad and Mamdani both proved that it is possible to succeed in a primary and offer voters an actual alternative to the corporate owned shills.
      - vee-kay 8mo ago
        [dead]
      - 8mo ago
judahmeek 8mo ago
The solution to increasing interest in local government is to strengthen the federal system (repealing the 17th amendment) & even extending it into state government (state senators should be appointed by, say, the city councils of the 24 largest municipalities in said state). This decentralization of power would bring the peoples' focus back to their own neighborhoods, where they can actually hold government officials accountable.
- freeone3000 8mo ago
  That’s a recipe for corruption and minority rule. It centralizes, not decentralizes, power, in the hands of fewer people. I would advise looking to effectively any senatorial appointment from the gilded age to see why the 17th was needed: monetary exchanges for senatorial seats was widespread, race-based disenfranchisement was a reality, and in one state, Utah, a theocracy was nearly cemented. A greater focus on local rights, and greater federalist powers, should not preclude senatorial elections.

by chongli 8mo ago

munificent 8mo ago

> Rich people buy out newspapers to signal-boost their own preferred messages to the public. Right, but micro level difference matters here. If a middle-class person can help an important story reach an audience, that's helpful for democracy. When a billionaire buys a newspaper, it isn't. This is also why I think suggesting it work like a kickstarter where multiple people can pool money to unlock an article would be helpful. It naturally collects the will of many people in a democratic way.

chongli 8mo ago
This is basically political fundraising, where rich people signal-boost their preferred candidate and help them attract lots of donors from the public. I think the fundamental piece you're missing is the Pareto principle. In any popularity contest, the most attention accrues to the most popular. This naturally leads to a power law distribution in popularity.
- judahmeek 8mo ago
  I'm actually wondering if Citizens United will prove to be a stabilizing force. https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/18/politics/texas-senate-primary-cornyn-paxton-hunt-crockett-talarico https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/18/politics/texas-senate-primary... shows that, in this year's Texas race, the centrists are getting more funding than the culture warriors even though the culture warriors are more popular. Granted, that's only a single data point.
kelseyfrog 8mo ago
It sounds quite aligned with how assurance contracts[1] work. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contract

derektank 8mo ago

>Many of the most mundane decisions made in municipal councils go completely unnoticed yet they can destroy whole communities in the long run. They go unnoticed because of scaling issues, not because people are per se less interested in local politics than national politics. If you write a story about a decision on the local city council, it is of interest to maybe a few hundred thousand, whereas a story about Congress is of interest to tens of millions. Even if people were ten times as interested in local news (as measured by their willingness to subscribe or the amount of ads they are willing to be exposed to), it would still make more sense to send a reporter to the Capitol before City Hall.

chongli 8mo ago
I think a lot of our issues today are because people are too engaged in federal politics. It's turned into a massive spectacle on the same level as the NFL.
- roysting 8mo ago
  That seems to be the point; WWE USA: Blue Team vs Red Team, The Democracy Simulation Show. Everyone has the same and equal meaningless vote.
  - mschuster91 8mo ago
    > Everyone has the same and equal meaningless vote. There is one vote that is not meaningless: the primaries. A lot of the issues y'all have is that Democrats and Republicans alike don't bother to vote in the primaries. That is how you got people like MTG or Trump, that is how you get people like Chuck Schumer stuck in office for far too long. AOC/The Squad and Mamdani both proved that it is possible to succeed in a primary and offer voters an actual alternative to the corporate owned shills.
    - vee-kay 8mo ago
      [dead]
    - 8mo ago

judahmeek 8mo ago

The solution to increasing interest in local government is to strengthen the federal system (repealing the 17th amendment) & even extending it into state government (state senators should be appointed by, say, the city councils of the 24 largest municipalities in said state). This decentralization of power would bring the peoples' focus back to their own neighborhoods, where they can actually hold government officials accountable.

freeone3000 8mo ago
That’s a recipe for corruption and minority rule. It centralizes, not decentralizes, power, in the hands of fewer people. I would advise looking to effectively any senatorial appointment from the gilded age to see why the 17th was needed: monetary exchanges for senatorial seats was widespread, race-based disenfranchisement was a reality, and in one state, Utah, a theocracy was nearly cemented. A greater focus on local rights, and greater federalist powers, should not preclude senatorial elections.