Here I thought Mozilla had made it possible to do micro transactions in the browser. That Mozilla had started a bank backed by 100 million in Bitcoin, allowing zero-fee off-chain transactions between content creators and consumers.
100 million dollars to reshape the economics of the web
51–60 of 277 posts
Re: 100 million dollars to reshape the economics of the web
#52None of these web monetization efforts address the fact that the pool of [all consumers' discretionary income they'd be willing to spend] is likely a small fraction of the size of [all commercial companies' marketing budgets]. No matter how much you reduce the friction for having people make small tips to websites, there's just significantly less money to go around, so it can never replace advertising revenue. The on…
Does it say somewhere it is tip based?
It seems like there are a ton of things that can be done to make it work better than where it is totally based on "small tips."
Re: 100 million dollars to reshape the economics of the web
#53None of these web monetization efforts address the fact that the pool of [all consumers' discretionary income they'd be willing to spend] is likely a small fraction of the size of [all commercial companies' marketing budgets]. No matter how much you reduce the friction for having people make small tips to websites, there's just significantly less money to go around, so it can never replace advertising revenue. The on…
If online advertising went away overnight
I'd extend that to all advertising and I think we might be out of this mess permanently.
It seems like an insane concept, because advertising is a part of modern life, but I think it's the only way to effectively kill the surveillance/influence peddling hydra.
Otherwise, all these efforts just redirect ad dollars to other forms of systems of influence which may be similarly as invasive.
Re: 100 million dollars to reshape the economics of the web
#54Re: 100 million dollars to reshape the economics of the web
#55Re: 100 million dollars to reshape the economics of the web
#56It's crazy, that we still do not have something like "Cash" on the internet. A simple, anonymous way to pay 10 cent or so. To use a website or read an article. That would make the world so much better for indie developers. Currently, an indie dev makes orders of magnitude less money per pageview then Google, Facebook and Co. Because those have all that advertising technology and ecosystem that indie devs don't have.…
There's been dozens of these products. Some have even been supported by Google, Facebook, and Co.
Nobody uses them.
Re: 100 million dollars to reshape the economics of the web
#57None of these web monetization efforts address the fact that the pool of [all consumers' discretionary income they'd be willing to spend] is likely a small fraction of the size of [all commercial companies' marketing budgets]. No matter how much you reduce the friction for having people make small tips to websites, there's just significantly less money to go around, so it can never replace advertising revenue. The on…
If online advertising went away overnight I'd extend that to all advertising and I think we might be out of this mess permanently. It seems like an insane concept, because advertising is a part of modern life, but I think it's the only way to effectively kill the surveillance/influence peddling hydra. Otherwise, all these efforts just redirect ad dollars to other forms of systems of influence which may be similarly a…
What counts as advertising?
Re: 100 million dollars to reshape the economics of the web
#58None of these web monetization efforts address the fact that the pool of [all consumers' discretionary income they'd be willing to spend] is likely a small fraction of the size of [all commercial companies' marketing budgets]. No matter how much you reduce the friction for having people make small tips to websites, there's just significantly less money to go around, so it can never replace advertising revenue. The on…
> the fact that the pool of [all consumers' discretionary income they'd be willing to spend] is likely a small fraction of the size of [all commercial companies' marketing budgets].
I don't understand this statement. The companies marketing to people with discretionary income presumably get their revenues from that discretionary income. So mathematically their marketing budget would have to be smaller than the revenue from these people.
Re: 100 million dollars to reshape the economics of the web
#59It's crazy, that we still do not have something like "Cash" on the internet. A simple, anonymous way to pay 10 cent or so. To use a website or read an article. That would make the world so much better for indie developers. Currently, an indie dev makes orders of magnitude less money per pageview then Google, Facebook and Co. Because those have all that advertising technology and ecosystem that indie devs don't have.…
Unfortunately the service that is free will always be more popular and ultimately win over more users. People have decided that paying with their privacy is better for them. I really wish paying 10 cents to use the service was the norm, but alas I doubt it will ever happen.
I don't understand why we don't pass a Terms-of-Use tax. Require every Terms agreement to be filed electronically with the state and the end-user to pay 10 cents for that service. I think we need to force their business model to be non-free, especially when they are making people agree to things that have a monetary cost either explicitly or externally.
Re: 100 million dollars to reshape the economics of the web
#60None of these web monetization efforts address the fact that the pool of [all consumers' discretionary income they'd be willing to spend] is likely a small fraction of the size of [all commercial companies' marketing budgets]. No matter how much you reduce the friction for having people make small tips to websites, there's just significantly less money to go around, so it can never replace advertising revenue. The on…
> the fact that the pool of [all consumers' discretionary income they'd be willing to spend] is likely a small fraction of the size of [all commercial companies' marketing budgets]. I don't understand this statement. The companies marketing to people with discretionary income presumably get their revenues from that discretionary income. So mathematically their marketing budget would have to be smaller than the revenu…
By [all consumers' discretionary income they'd be willing to spend] I think the parent meant [all consumers' discretionary income they'd be willing to spend on web content] which is obviously a subset of all their discretionary income. Marketers are peddling tangible useful items, and people will pay a lot more for that than for the ability to read given words on the internet.