Skip to main content

in reply to Doc Edward Morbius ⭕​

Interestingly micropayments do exist for online news, implemented in a very round-about way: Assumming they're charged by the kilobyte readers pay to view & be tracked by the ads. Which eventually makes its way back to the newssite.
in reply to Adrian Cochrane

Yeah, nah.

"Repudiation as the micropayments killer feature (Not)"
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/4r683b/repudiation_as_the_micropayments_killer_feature/

NB: Ignore "repudiation" in the title for now --- that's just one of many scamsWschemes to plaster over a turd which fails to address the underlying failures.

Yes, someone can prop up a shitty fucked up micropayments fallacy for a time. It won't solve the general media issue.

Information-as-a-public-good will.

$15.40/person-month for ads-free news. ($8 with ads).

Another $6.50 buys you all-you-can-eat book access.

No tracking, no monitoring, no ads, no bullshit.

Pro-rate by HH wealth/income for equal access.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31448052

Adrian Cochrane reshared this.

in reply to Doc Edward Morbius ⭕​

I'll be clear: I really don't like the answer I stated. I just find it an interesting parallel to draw.
in reply to Adrian Cochrane

I somewhat suspected that on 2nd reading.

I dislike the concept enough that I tend not to bother reading closely, even when I should 😺
in reply to Doc Edward Morbius ⭕​

The surveillance mechanism is so expensive to build, maintain and run that it must eat up a lot of the revenue that comes from advertising. It's not an efficient way to fund content providers.

I can think of lots of reasons why we got here (no micropayment infrastructure; familiarity with the advertising model; resistance to payments in cash), but I still hate it as much as anyone else.

@alcinnz
in reply to Doc Edward Morbius ⭕​

I pay for Apple News+ for that reason.

There's also https://us.readly.com

Curiously, most newspapers seem uninterested in taking part in such ventures.
in reply to mathew 🦜☕

Apple, or Google, or Amazon, or Facebook taking on this role is of course one option, and one that I'm aware of.

I think it's ultimately more problematic.

The ISP-gateway relationship already exists. And there's billing built in to it.

Generally, people will receive broadband / Internet connectivity:
  • Through a wired residential or commercial service (cable, DSL, fibre, microwave beam, ...)
  • Through a mobile provider.
  • In some cases, satellite Internet, with Starlink likely an increasingly prevalent source.
  • Incidental access through some local PoP (point of presence), which itself relies on one of the above.
Other than satellite, each of these reliies on some entity with a local physical presence.

And with whom local regulators and publishers could reach agreements.

Again a key obligation I'd like to see is that 1) no good-faith publisher could be refused, 2) that no exclusive distribution arrangements where multiple connectivity providers exist be permitted, and that 3) no clients be denied content access. That is, there's a common carrier / common access obligation at the carrier, publishier, and recipient levels.

@alcinnz