>Voting with our wallets got us infowars and two major fake news groups of media
yes. that's the cost of freedom. Stupidity is freedom as well.
>Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy?
I want good creators compensated for good stories. MBAs will get paid no matter what. that's sort of what they minmax for. And they don't care what industry they suck off of.
>I just wish it were possible to pay $1 for an article whose headline sounds interesting, or someone recommended
$1 for an article would be way overkill for 99.999% of the population. the microtransaction approach can't work because you really can't charge much more than a dollar for any digital transaction to begin with. You can always go for the "tokens" approach, but that's a much older and assumedly unpopular model.
>The free market is great. But we should not deny it when it leads to bad outcomes.
At the same time, denying the free market because it doesn't go the way we want just makes us sound hypocritcal. Fortunately, most results of this model do not give us scams and propoganda. There's enough to discuss without going into the fringes.
>> Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy?
> I want good creators compensated for good stories.
I asked that rhetorically, and then immediately answered it.
> I want good creators compensated for good stories.
So do I. And yet they refuse to take my money.
> $1 for an article would be way overkill for 99.999% of the population.
Maybe. Maybe not. Yes, subjectively it'll feel that way to most people. But there are many out there who have a subscription for $5 a month where they consume none of the content.
But I just pulled the price $1 out of my ass. $0.20, then? The Economist seems to cost $79 per year. If you charge $0.20 per article that's order of one article per day. And most people would not even be interested in one of their articles per week.
Then tomorrow they can spend $0.20 at FT for another article, and so on. And at the end of the year, $79 has been sent to actual journalism, and the customer has received value.
Now this potential customer just consumes nothing. Or worse: Twitter.
> Stupidity is freedom as well.
Differential pricing too. It annoys me that I'm not charged $1 per Economist article, since I am willing to pay.
>I asked that rhetorically, and then immediately answered it.
Okay, I can still answer a question, especially if the framing is bad.
>So do I. And yet they refuse to take my money.
We don't get to choose how we pay for stuff. That's part of the deal. Maybe I want a slice of bread but I often need to buy a loaf. Maybe I want a bottle of ketchup but Costco only sells 2 giant vats.
Again, blame Mastercard/Visa for your model not being popular. I mentioned as such in the previous response. You may have chosen a dollar arbitrarily, but you were kind of correct about that cost if we're talking per article purchases.
yes. that's the cost of freedom. Stupidity is freedom as well.
>Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy?
I want good creators compensated for good stories. MBAs will get paid no matter what. that's sort of what they minmax for. And they don't care what industry they suck off of.
>I just wish it were possible to pay $1 for an article whose headline sounds interesting, or someone recommended
$1 for an article would be way overkill for 99.999% of the population. the microtransaction approach can't work because you really can't charge much more than a dollar for any digital transaction to begin with. You can always go for the "tokens" approach, but that's a much older and assumedly unpopular model.
>The free market is great. But we should not deny it when it leads to bad outcomes.
At the same time, denying the free market because it doesn't go the way we want just makes us sound hypocritcal. Fortunately, most results of this model do not give us scams and propoganda. There's enough to discuss without going into the fringes.