Stop trying to make social networks succeed

I don't view it as a badge of honor, but I know that its almost always privileged people that suggest locking the lower classes out of information. That pisses me off like nothing else. People are all for the poor until it comes down to actually finding solutions.

>As for getting the devices for free, the same argument could be applied to online content

Not particularly unless piracy gets involved. If we lock everything behind a paywall, going to the library or downloading information won't do jack.

>I find your arguments about "classism" a bit strange. Is it "classism" that some stuff is more expensive in the supermarket? Is it "classism" that the plumber charges his hourly fee to the poor as well as to the rich? That an iPhone costs a thousand dollars?

I am talking about information. Not physical goods. You are applying the logic of limited physical goods to online services that are virtually unlimited. Bandwidth is cheap.

As for if #2 gets implemented, I guarantee you that this will not work. Paid content will not be cheap. Never has been and never will. In your other comments you bring up that you foresee services being a mere 10$ a year. The price hikes and predatory practices that online services have had prove that at best you are naive. If #2 happens, I fully support people doing #4.

Now there are other options. Look at Coffeezilla on YouTube...doesn't run ads, but runs entirely off of donations. Other youtubers do the same thing. They set up a patreon, give benefits and incentives to do so, and for those that can't afford to support they watch for free. PBS had a similar thing going when analogue airwaves were legal for TV and still does to some extent with their streaming service. Some shows you have to pay for but the important stuff, such as newshour, are completely free for everyone to watch.

For large scale digital projects, some features could be locked behind a paywall whereas the majority of content is free. That is how Discord makes its money. The ad/paid dichotomy does not exist...there are other options that allow people to freely access content and communicate with people in ways that normally they would not be able to afford.

That applies to paywalled content too, my guy. That logic doesn't work.

>You can get some excellent content for $10 per year, but a more normal price is around $50 per year - which is still dirt cheap

I have never seen any content anywhere be available for 10$ a year, and 50$ a year isn't cheap unless you provide a LOOOOOT of content. Even if it is worth it, most people living paycheck to paycheck can't afford that.

>Why don't you apply this argument to a restaurant? The ingredients in your meal are cheap, so why should you pay for your meal? Since the labour of the people making and serving apparently has no value. Why aren't Ubers just the cost of gas? Etc.

All of those things are more expensive than bandwidth and are also scarce physical goods. Yes, I know, labor costs are a thing and so is electricity, etc. Thats why I brought up a mixed-payment model such as Discord. You might not make as much money as Facebook with their ad-based services, but if you want to serve the biggest amount of people that is a logical way to go. The service is free, but non-essential extras cost. Works for both parties.

>If small time content creators can't get paid, they'll do something else. That content will not exist to pirate.

I find that this is rarely true, and is hyperbole at best. Very few small time content creators paywall their content. Rather, they sell merch and accept donations. "But, what if they don't win the lottery and get big?" Yeah, they wouldn't be making that money anyway even if it were paywalled.

As for big time content creators, such as Disney, they also make the vast majority of their money off of merch. The actual ticket sales are a small fraction of total revenue so piracy is an extremely small dent in profit.

I say all this to say this...paywalls are not the answer to this problem. Its not a dichotomy like people want to assume. These past few days I have researched alternative revenue models, even brought up a few in this discussion, and paywalling is too restrictive to make any sort of sense for most consumers that are broke or value their money.

You seriously think that people are going to pay you without already knowing what you put out? The only people that can get by with paywalling everything already had a following when the content became paywalled. People don't have infinite money to throw at random strangers, so unless you have a hell of a marketing campaign for your indie blog/youtube channel/whatever nobody is going to pay.

> Curiosity Stream have promotions for $10 per year, if you needed an example . . . It's all about the quality of content, which it seems you don't care much for.

Wow, rude. Also Curiosity stream is a terrible example because most of those documentaries are older than the streaming service itself, and are available for free on their official youtube channels. Its only benefit is that it congregates the content into one space.

>Yet, most people think like you and that's why local journalism is dying. The result is that people sit at home and rage about Trump or Biden and know everything about the Titanic submarine, but have no clue about what's going on in their neighborhood or region. Information that is of very high value and can have a huge impact on the person who was too cheap to pay a pittance for it.

Hyperbole. Look, if you are so uninvolved with your community that you need a local newspaper to spoon-feed you what is happening in your own back yard, that is entirely on you. I have never paid for a local newspaper, but because I spend a lot of time in my community, both doing volunteer work and talking with neighbors, I don't need one. If their payment models are so outdated that they cannot stay in business, that is on them. I have no moral obligation to give them money, and neither do you.

>Labour is not a scarce physical good. That's what you're paying for in the restaurant.

IDK about you but I don't go to restaurants unless they offer some unique product. Most people that value money, including myself, eat at home because restaurants are usually a fat waste of money. Just because they are putting in effort does not mean they deserve my money. Thats a logical fallacy.

>Maybe a donation, if and only if you feel like it and are in a good mood.

You seem to completely misunderstand the donation model. It is an extension of the "base is free, extras are more" payment model that has fans pay more. Its not charity. It is a transaction for people who truly love the content and can afford the extra money. Want behind the scenes footage? Extra episodes of your favorite podcast? Go to Patreon and unlock them for whatever amount a month.

>Just take a look at how many projects abandoned because the creators moved on because they couldn't afford the monetary cost or time. Things that where enjoyed by thousands, but that very few wanted to contribute to, neither in time, money or effort. I've seen this many times.

Thats on them for not finding a monetization model that works for them.

>No, they're outraged that the creators don't continue making the stuff for free anymore. "Greedy", "beggar" and such are what content creators get called when they dare to charge or ask for donations.

While name calling is wrong, I agree, it is not the consumer's responsibility to keep a business afloat. If they want donations, like I said earlier, they need to provide incentives to do so. There are plenty of ways to do this depending on the business.

>They aren't consumers if they don't pay, that's the thing. Why should anybody care about them? I hope these kind of people fucking stay on TikTok or go offline. They contribute nothing, why the hell should anybody care about them?

"If they don't have money, why should I care about them?" See, that's the classist attitude I was talking about the other day. For one, consumers only consume content. Its in the name. Payment is entirely coincidental. Other payment models that are not paywalled service everybody. Have an animation series that is popular with kids? Most people wouldn't pay for it, but around Christmastime when bonuses come in, even the completely destitute will buy at least something for their family around that time. There is a reason merch works for the most popular content creators.

It seems to me that #1, you assume consumers have infinite money for infinite streaming services, and that if they don't it is because they don't want it hard enough. And #2, don't seem to understand that effort is not equal to deserving money, especially during times like now when inflation is out of control and few people are willing to spend. And #3, that somehow paywalls make content less spammy and higher quality. None of these are true. Just look at Locals, Substack, Medium, and people that use Patreon to paywall ALL of their content...you will never see content that is lower quality.

Paywalls are one of the least industrious, most outdated, and ineffectual models possible. Unless you have lots of money to magically throw around, its terrible for the consumer and alternatives are superior.