3 ms·
I'd suggest (almost) exactly the opposite, actually... Charge $5/mo to be a 'helper' and keep it free for blind users. I suspect there are enough folks out the
by JshWright 12y ago
I'd suggest (almost) exactly the opposite, actually...
Charge $5/mo to be a 'helper' and keep it free for blind users. I suspect there are enough folks out there who would be happy to pay $5 for the opportunity to help others (maybe I'm too much of an optimist though... who knows...)
That way you cover costs, and filter out a lot of potential trolls.
- aswerty 12y agoI think this is a good idea. The subscription could potentially be done similarly to Humble Bundle where a decent percentage could be ring fenced for charitable/non-profit organisations. In this case you'd expect it to go to organisations helping the bodily impaired.
- cgag 12y agoPaying someone to be a middleman on my volunteer charity work feels pretty gross.
- walterbell 12y agoIf they are providing a valuable service, this will lead to competition and more vendors who want to help you provide your charity more easily/efficiently/augmented/whatever. If they are not providing a valuable service, they will go out of business.
- JshWright 12y agoWhy? They are enabling you to have opportunities to help people that you would not otherwise have. I would consider that a service worth paying for (and I assume I'm not alone...)
- ianferrel 12y agoIt feels like being taken advantage of. It's taking the worst part of crowdsourcing, which is that the majority of the gains are concentrated in a few people while many people contribute to success, but receive a pittance, and making it even worse. I'm not convinced that the raw economic incentives work out, either. I have tons of opportunities to help people. Supply of people who need help greatly exceeds my ability to provide it. I can't imagine paying for the privilege.