3 ms·

Definitely not. I don't want to pay for every single website I visit for example, it creates a chilling effect overall as to my want of visiting many different

Definitely not. I don't want to pay for every single website I visit for example, it creates a chilling effect overall as to my want of visiting many different sites.

tcfhgj 3mo ago
1) Not every single site is displaying ads, e.g. Codeberg.org 2) aren't you paying indirectly anyways? (With only a part of the revenue actually landing in the bags of the operator of the site - another part is used to fund Google Chrome and people who design ads)
- satvikpendem 3mo ago
  Sure. But the sites I read and others like news site definitely have ads. Imagine news all being a subscription, fewer people would actually be informed, the opposite of what should be the case. NYTimes can do it because they're big enough but most news sites especially smaller or local ones cannot.
  - t0bia_s 3mo ago
    I do not read news sites and I do not consider myself as uninformed.
    - cognitiveinline 3mo ago
      where are you getting informed about the news?
      - t0bia_s 3mo ago
        Mostly family or friends.
        cognitiveinline 3mo ago
        Not the best source of news, I'm afraid. In terms how one can consider oneself about news, I think this is closer to uninformed than the other way. But that's me.
        t0bia_s 3mo ago
        I guess most people think that their source of news is the best one. Because thats why they read them. Unimportant info is filtered, that realy important that somehow affect me get quite quickly. Most conversation about news are irrelevant thus I have more time to do other things. News are mostly distraction and emotion flow anyway, I'm not sure why consumption is considering as informing. There are plenty other subjects that I consider much more informative.
    - satvikpendem 3mo ago
      Your story is therefore irrelevant to this conversation about advertising versus micropayments. Like, good for you that you don't read news but many people do.
    - tcfhgj 3mo ago
      What's hacker news?
  - tcfhgj 3mo ago
    For me the majority of private news sites are already subscriptions with a part of it being available without subscriptions. Then there is publicly accessible news forcibly paid by everyone. I guess even without ads content without subscriptions would still exist to attract people, however the reality might shift completely if micro payments became a thing (i.e. paying a few cents for every news you view - could be enabled by something like a digital currency like digital euro). Currently manu are informed by news which attracts many clicks (incentives through ads), which might be considered more disinformation than news. People might have more money in the bags, because they'd pay less to marketing departments designing and paying for ads. Lots of things to consider
binary132 3mo ago
what if it was paid for as part of your internet subscription and you had more than enough credits for all your current internet usage? wouldn’t it actually feel good to patronize websites you were interested in with actual direct value instead of everyone relying on spyware and obnoxious spam covering content directed at you?
cykros 3mo ago
The UX would have to be carefully thought out. But something like setting a "don't bother me" threshold, an overall budget, and an amount that you would like to be asked for explicit permission before accessing would go a long way to making it a smooth experience. I don't want my browser just paying everything willy nilly but I also don't want to be nagged every time I access a news article as to whether or not I agree to 6 satoshis. There could be ways of addressing that; browser extensions may make it a configurable option with the default of "ask for everything" being the absolute safest way forward. Decent use of the http/402 error code, and sort of exactly what the L402 folks are working toward resolving.

Definitely not. I don't want to pay for every single website I visit for example, it creates a chilling effect overall as to my want of visiting many different sites.

tcfhgj 3mo ago

1) Not every single site is displaying ads, e.g. Codeberg.org 2) aren't you paying indirectly anyways? (With only a part of the revenue actually landing in the bags of the operator of the site - another part is used to fund Google Chrome and people who design ads)

satvikpendem 3mo ago
Sure. But the sites I read and others like news site definitely have ads. Imagine news all being a subscription, fewer people would actually be informed, the opposite of what should be the case. NYTimes can do it because they're big enough but most news sites especially smaller or local ones cannot.
- t0bia_s 3mo ago
  I do not read news sites and I do not consider myself as uninformed.
  - cognitiveinline 3mo ago
    where are you getting informed about the news?
    - t0bia_s 3mo ago
      Mostly family or friends.
      - cognitiveinline 3mo ago
        Not the best source of news, I'm afraid. In terms how one can consider oneself about news, I think this is closer to uninformed than the other way. But that's me.
        t0bia_s 3mo ago
        I guess most people think that their source of news is the best one. Because thats why they read them. Unimportant info is filtered, that realy important that somehow affect me get quite quickly. Most conversation about news are irrelevant thus I have more time to do other things. News are mostly distraction and emotion flow anyway, I'm not sure why consumption is considering as informing. There are plenty other subjects that I consider much more informative.
  - satvikpendem 3mo ago
    Your story is therefore irrelevant to this conversation about advertising versus micropayments. Like, good for you that you don't read news but many people do.
  - tcfhgj 3mo ago
    What's hacker news?
- tcfhgj 3mo ago
  For me the majority of private news sites are already subscriptions with a part of it being available without subscriptions. Then there is publicly accessible news forcibly paid by everyone. I guess even without ads content without subscriptions would still exist to attract people, however the reality might shift completely if micro payments became a thing (i.e. paying a few cents for every news you view - could be enabled by something like a digital currency like digital euro). Currently manu are informed by news which attracts many clicks (incentives through ads), which might be considered more disinformation than news. People might have more money in the bags, because they'd pay less to marketing departments designing and paying for ads. Lots of things to consider

binary132 3mo ago

what if it was paid for as part of your internet subscription and you had more than enough credits for all your current internet usage? wouldn’t it actually feel good to patronize websites you were interested in with actual direct value instead of everyone relying on spyware and obnoxious spam covering content directed at you?

cykros 3mo ago

The UX would have to be carefully thought out. But something like setting a "don't bother me" threshold, an overall budget, and an amount that you would like to be asked for explicit permission before accessing would go a long way to making it a smooth experience. I don't want my browser just paying everything willy nilly but I also don't want to be nagged every time I access a news article as to whether or not I agree to 6 satoshis. There could be ways of addressing that; browser extensions may make it a configurable option with the default of "ask for everything" being the absolute safest way forward. Decent use of the http/402 error code, and sort of exactly what the L402 folks are working toward resolving.