11–20 of 102 posts
The problem with Scroll is we trade one evil for another: instead of ads and trackers, we get legally dubious "AS IS" clauses in Terms of Service, and censorship-laden arbitration clauses that cannot be subject to oversight.
Every time people say that if they had how to pay for the site they would use it. Now is the time to show the truth
I've been wanting someone to do this idea (spotify for news) for years. But they really need to get one of the heavy hitters with paywalls (NY Times, The Economist, Financial Times, WaPo, or WSJ). But maybe it's worth paying just to show publishers that it's viable. It's a rough chicken/egg problem.
The problem with Scroll is we trade one evil for another: instead of ads and trackers, we get legally dubious "AS IS" clauses in Terms of Service, and censorship-laden arbitration clauses that cannot be subject to oversight.
Are there any concretely troubling parts to the terms that you saw?
> Scroll may, from time to time, change these Terms of Service, including the Privacy Policy. Such revisions shall be effective immediately and we will notify you if these changes are significant.
There is also the usual arbitration agreement.
It’s strange. Part of me thinks this is a great idea, but some of the websites are also the worst offenders of what the site is trying to combat. Looking at Gizmodo and the verge, the crazy amount of 3rd party cookies, unable to really opt out at all. While writing pieces about how horrible google and Facebook are for all the privacy evasive stuff they are doing. I’d rather support content that aim for quality and di…
You may not get ads but everything you do in the sites is sold. Why would I pay for this?
They say it’s ad-free. Is it tracking-free too?
On the other hand they bill you based on the percentage of the time you spend on each individual partner site. That seems somewhat contradictory.
I think it's a compelling and feasible solution to the news site monetization problem. It just seems difficult to imagine users flocking to something like this away from ad blockers—which improve daily (and are mostly free).
Standardised micropayments are the obvious answer, but it seems to be a ship that's sailed.
It’s strange. Part of me thinks this is a great idea, but some of the websites are also the worst offenders of what the site is trying to combat. Looking at Gizmodo and the verge, the crazy amount of 3rd party cookies, unable to really opt out at all. While writing pieces about how horrible google and Facebook are for all the privacy evasive stuff they are doing. I’d rather support content that aim for quality and di…
You're being lenient. All of these websites either have crazy amount of trackers, actively engage in accusing others of what they're doing, or just write clickbait articles with little substance. You may not get ads but everything you do in the sites is sold. Why would I pay for this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been wanting someone to do this idea (spotify for news) for years. But they really need to get one of the heavy hitters with paywalls (NY Times, The Economist, Financial Times, WaPo, or WSJ). But maybe it's worth paying just to show publishers that it's viable. It's a rough chicken/egg problem.
I mentioned this in my separate top-level reply, but Scroll doesn't include getting you past paywalls: https://intercom.help/scroll/en/articles/3344875-does-scroll...
I worry that this idea won't work until
- Someone can prove that the increase in number of paid subscribers will offset the decrease in $/sub, and...
- The subscription company is effectively owned by the big news orgs, so that they feel comfortable effectively handing over control of their subscriber base. Similar to how Hulu was started as a partnership between a few big media companies.