Please Pay for Your News • Hacker News Board

Re: Please Pay for Your News

#111

Post by c22 » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 4:25 PM UTC

egonschiele wrote: post #49

Yen wrote: post #40

I disagree. Don't pay for the news. I might pay for Netflix or HBO. If one is insufficiently entertaining, I won't. It makes sense for Netflix/HBO to compete on producing the most entertaining and addicting product, and I know that's exactly what I'm paying for. If news agencies are funded by having more subscribers, they'll also be incentivized to produce the most entertaining and addictive content. The value of new…

Great, so you are saying that NO news is preferable to the current situation.

Elsewhere in this thread you've claimed that demand for news is universal. With such high demand why do you fear a NO news situation? If all classical news outlets die surely something will rise up to fill this void? Sure, it may not look anything like what we currently have, but that's kind of the point.

Re: Please Pay for Your News

#112

Post by stnmtn » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 4:30 PM UTC

dkdk8283 wrote: post #107

I’m not paying for news because I want to see the current model of news die out. It’s opinionated, biased, and heavily edited. When the news gets back to factual unbiased reporting I’ll consider spending money.

When was news factual and unbiased?

Re: Please Pay for Your News

#113

Post by egonschiele » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

c22 wrote: post #111

egonschiele wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great, so you are saying that NO news is preferable to the current situation.

Elsewhere in this thread you've claimed that demand for news is universal . With such high demand why do you fear a NO news situation? If all classical news outlets die surely something will rise up to fill this void? Sure, it may not look anything like what we currently have, but that's kind of the point.

This concept is not new, it's called Tragedy of the Commons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons). Basically, everyone wants something and no one wants to pay for it.

Re: Please Pay for Your News

#114

Post by egonschiele » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 5:06 PM UTC

c22 wrote: post #109

egonschiele wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless someone kickstarts a system like that, which would be insanely high startup cost with insanely high risk, the way to actually get to what you are talking about is for a lot more people to pay for the news, so eventually they can stop relying on advertising.

Another way is to boycott news with advertising so that they're forced to find a model that doesn't rely on it. Why is advertising the only choice here? Why do you assume they'll drop that revenue stream when they "get enough subscribers"?

Boycotting generally doesn't work. When Trump was elected there was a lot of fuss to boycott companies that did business with Trump, but it had no effect.

> Why do you assume they'll drop that revenue stream when they "get enough subscribers"?

Fair, I don't know if they will. I'm just saying that I don't see a better choice on the table right now. NOT subscribing to the news is not a better choice to me.

Re: Please Pay for Your News

#115

Post by egonschiele » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 5:06 PM UTC

cercatrova wrote: post #102

egonschiele wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are so right. Charities have to beg customers to pay too. Maybe they should step back and re-evaluate. Actually, here's an even better idea -- let's just kill the poor. Think of how much money that would save.

This is a bad faith argument, based on a slippery slope. Your other comments seem to be similar. Familiarize yourself with HN rules before commenting.

Let me know which other comments you have an issue with.

Re: Please Pay for Your News

#116

Post by jeegsy » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 5:06 PM UTC

Is there any other industry that believes it is entitled to your custom?

Re: Please Pay for Your News

#117

Post by egonschiele » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

cercatrova wrote: post #100

egonschiele wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your argument is, since it's not exactly what you want, you aren't going to pay for it.

Well, yes. Even as the parent poster says that this isn't their argument, let us assume it is. Why would I pay for something if it doesn't fit my needs? I don't see other merchants think they're entitled to my sale.

So just to be clear, the choices on the table are,

1. Let the news die.

2. Pay for the news, suck up the fact that it isn't exactly what you want it to be.

3. Don't pay for the news and hope the rest of us pay for it so it doesn't die.

If you see another choice please let me know.

Re: Please Pay for Your News

#118

Post by jeegsy » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 5:10 PM UTC

quadrangle wrote: post #14

As difficult as this trade-off for business is, I prefer to financially support journalism that isn't compromising its values by using third-party ads. The journalism that rejects advertising is the virtuous journalism that most deserves our dollars.

I think that advertising from local small businesses might be ok.

Re: Please Pay for Your News

#119

Post by c22 » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

egonschiele wrote: post #113

c22 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elsewhere in this thread you've claimed that demand for news is universal . With such high demand why do you fear a NO news situation? If all classical news outlets die surely something will rise up to fill this void? Sure, it may not look anything like what we currently have, but that's kind of the point.

This concept is not new, it's called Tragedy of the Commons ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons ). Basically, everyone wants something and no one wants to pay for it.

I'm familiar with the trope, but "news" is not some finite resource we might accidentally use up, so that wouldn't seem to apply here.

Perhaps no one is currently willing to pay for it because (a) they don't have to and (b) a lot of it is utter garbage. It doesn't stand that should these "options" disappear other ones wouldn't take their place, perhaps even ones worth paying for.

Re: Please Pay for Your News

#120

Post by kup0 » Mon, Jun 01, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

0goel0 wrote: post #86

A lot of people justifying not paying for news by saying that they don't like ads. Question then: do you never read the news? Because if you do, you are consuming the product. So clearly, you are not against the ads. You just don't want to pay for it (even though the median income on HN is high enough that it would be a rounding error for most).

I think there is no good answer for many people. I don't want ads (and will continue to block them) and I don't want to pay directly for news either.

I have paid for news in the past and found that it wasn't worth it. Part of the issue is that to get the news I would want I would have to have a subscription at like 10 different companies. Not to mention the fact that many of them still have ads EVEN if you pay.

I already have enough subscription fatigue with streaming services, apps that have gone subscription model, etc. that it just isn't going to happen.

There is no business model I've found worth supporting yet for news. I'm still waiting to find a news product good enough to pay for. It doesn't exist for me.

So my current process is to just mostly avoid articles and news sites in general and let the news that gets to me through various means (free email digests/newsletters that aggregate and summarize, other people, social media, etc) be enough. The only exception being the occasional link on an aggregator-type site like HN where someone has linked to it.