531–540 of 617 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moot argument. It stopped working for them.
In what way? They are still publishing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. I don't think you get the problem. If I'm spending $10 or so on all these media and entertainment folks, the first day of the month might be bad, but the 20th or day after the 3rd Wednesday might be just fine. A lot of people living on fixed incomes or paycheck to paycheck manage their money closely. Given how banks work, a $1 charge at the wrong time is seriously problematic. I realize SV never has to worry, but…
My point is that if you're living paycheck to paycheck in such a way that when you get paid impacts when you can pay your expenses, you shouldn't be paying for things like patreon, you should be saving that money into a rainy day fund. That is, people living paycheck to paycheck aren't (and shouldn't be) the target audience of Patreon, because they really shouldn't be using Patreon. Or in other words, if "a $1 charge…
Sorry for the snark, but I am getting a little sick of lamenting the plight of other folks while not doing the simple things to help.
> Edit: To clarify, what this really comes down to is that I don't think patreon (or any company) should be going out of its way to encourage people who may not be financially stable to subscribe to recurring charges for things. That seems abusive, not empowering.
Think about that statement in the light of a non-ad supported web.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's something wrong if you're getting paid $0.05 CPM for AdSense US traffic.
Not necessarily, I have computer-related content which gets results like this (a bit better than this, but I assumed that the parent poster was exaggerating a bit about the 3x10^6 traffic). The problem is quite notorious, and AdSense now refuses new "tech" content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tend to think framing in terms of (legal or moral) rights isn't the best argument. The debate needs to be about utility and interests. People seem to think they exist in a vacuum. But now everyone is using ad blockers, and the dynamics have devolved to resemble the Greek tax system: "I'm not paying those taxes, they are too high" -> "We're not getting enough revenue, need to lower costs" -> "Why should I pay for th…
Goodwill? Good faith? After years and years of abuse, attacks, and irritation from their part? I think not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I was a kid, my dad used to rip the advertisements out of magazines as soon as they came in the mail. That's a practice I've carried on, despite getting far few magazines these days... My family also used to mute the advertisements on TV, though I don't think any of us still watch it. So when I see people claiming that adblockers are immoral, it always gives me a good chuckle. Is ripping the ads out of a magazin…
> Is the mute button on my remote a ethnical crime against poor hapless television companies? Which reminds me, TV/cable/et al. related services already cost money, yet they still serve advertisements. Isn't this a form of double-dipping? Shouldn't they be paying (or giving a discount) to watch advertisements?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is that if you're living paycheck to paycheck in such a way that when you get paid impacts when you can pay your expenses, you shouldn't be paying for things like patreon, you should be saving that money into a rainy day fund. That is, people living paycheck to paycheck aren't (and shouldn't be) the target audience of Patreon, because they really shouldn't be using Patreon. Or in other words, if "a $1 charge…
This whole thread ended up being about a replacement for Ads. So, when news / entertainment goes to a payment arrangement like Patreon, what do those people do? The answer "don't" and "save" are not realistic. Especially if a simple change would open up some help by being a bit more user centric. Waiting a month for an expense you actually have the money now for is just plain poor manners on the billing agency. When…
Perhaps, but I also don't necessarily think of Comcast as a design we should follow. If I understand
>Think about that statement in the light of a non-ad supported web.
correctly, your implication is that this will cut people who can't pay out of services (ie. things become subscription based and then non-payers are excluded). That at least can be solved by freemium models (which is what Patreon does), although Mz goes further and states that even that can be alienating to people who want to pay but can't.
FWIW, as someone who is a consumer of a lot of things that I don't subscribe or pay for (including some patreon based groups), who I probably should start supporting, because I can and I'd prefer that they continue existing, I've never felt like I don't have access to media I want (note that this is different than "do I feel like I'm unable to support something I enjoy"). I'm relying on the morality of creators to continue producing (good) free content, and only producing special content at the price, but so far at least that's been a good assumption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not even about the bits/bytes/data to me. My eyeballs are not being loaned to you; my senses/attention is not for sale. I'm perfectly fine with paywalls - that's the 'correct' approach as far as I'm concerned. You can decide to conceal the information you know; if it's valuable and nonexcludable (usually isn't), then hey, you have a sale. But if you don't, don't expect your deals with third parties to hold up on some…
> My eyeballs are not being loaned to you; my senses/attention is not for sale. The sites need to pay for servers somehow. Experience has proven time and time again that putting up paywalls just makes people go elsewhere.
I always imagined that some website/mobile app/service would appear that would let you buy subscriptions for access to multiple publishers at once. I think people have a hard time spending $5 here a month $10 there a month, but would spend maybe $49 for a range of access to sites. I don't know why something like that hasn't taken off yet. You could pick the sites you want access to or they could do a pay out based on…
If you think about it, $5 is probably more than they could ever hope to make serving ads to a single occasional user.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Internet advertising is a bubble - it delivers so little value but so much money is flowing through it. It has to pop sometime.
Why would so many companies advertise if it provided such little value?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/chase-ads-youtub...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is that if you're living paycheck to paycheck in such a way that when you get paid impacts when you can pay your expenses, you shouldn't be paying for things like patreon, you should be saving that money into a rainy day fund. That is, people living paycheck to paycheck aren't (and shouldn't be) the target audience of Patreon, because they really shouldn't be using Patreon. Or in other words, if "a $1 charge…
I kind of agree with your basic point, but people with this issue don't solve it by "saving up" and some people will never be well off. It is inherently problematic to design a world where only The Haves can contribute. I am homeless. I have been treated vastly better by second hand stores and payday loan places than by any charity organization that has helped me because I am a customer and they need my money to pay…
Agreed. Although at least for patreon, which in my experience is freemium, you aren't worrying about basic access. If we were talking about a newspaper subscription or internet access or an all access subscription to some content creator who only gave access to patrons that might be different, but "premium access to extra content a creator makes" is something that I don't spend money on. In an ad-free world that might change, but it also might not.
Now, on the other hand, there's perhaps an honor in saying that I shouldn't be taking money from people who can't afford this. I think its difficult, because you either end up inadvertently taking advantage of people or alienating people, but I don't see a way to do neither. (I'm thinking of cigarettes and lottery tickets as corollaries here).
>If you do not allow for the possibility that the 99% can help pay for it, you also inherently cut them out in other critical areas, like having a voice in design and services.
I make two comments here. The first is that (again at least with patreon), I see it as an expressly premium service. My view might be wrong, but from that perspective its worth replacing "Patreon subscription" with "concierge drycleaning subscription", and I hope you wouldn't have a problem with me saying that as a general rule people really shouldn't be using a concierge drycleaning service if they are living paycheck to paycheck.
The second is that this isn't (necessarily) a 99%/1% issue. My comment was specifically addressing people with no savings and who were living paycheck to paycheck. While that's a lot of people, its not 99% (at least in the US). That's not to say that you're overall point is wrong (classist design is bad except in specific circumstances), but if you're going to make that claim, I think its important to be clear about the classes.