Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Free and Open Internet

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 53 posts

Re: The Free and Open Internet

#31

Post by kwccoin »

For that case, it should use the economist model of you have x free article per month. Then those really burn you like an orange head waving his hair you can read. Or the last word of X.

The title is a bit problematic though. What is meant by free and open if 1/5 of human beings are not allowed to read anything written in English be default. You may argue that is because of their government and people deserve ... But no. I blame it on Internet very design. We were told in 1990s that it is free and open. At worst the commence may have to be tolerant but we can at least offer ourselves and others may. That is within that context this article is. But what we have missed in this context the infrastructure of Internet is not free and open. It is in fact not just closed but a means to monitor every word without a chance to delete.

Free and Open. RIP the last words of Internet.

Re: The Free and Open Internet

#32

Post by JHH_18 »

I have seven T of Junk in my bunk, and dudes, When are you going to get realistic pricing for the native explorers? and pron? A pittance, but sometimes it's hard to get it off. Brains are worth enlightening,but whats a fair cost? Would you follow me around forever? If the net disappeared, I wouldn't/couldn't read all this again... (Oh, filing sys.)

Re: The Free and Open Internet

#33

Post by JHH_18 »

The very simplest of reader tactics. On the Internet, for anything posted, it's stored when read, elsewhere after the read. Web2 is built atop the structure engeineered to provide millitary communication in the "nuke war" scenerio. How will you keep your copy in that scenerio?

Re: The Free and Open Internet

#34

Post by zozbot123 »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #27
codetrotter wrote: post #19

> paywalls should federate, like the early ATMs did, so that joining one means joining them all That’s an interesting idea. I imagine it could work sort of like Spotify Premium but with a twist. Perhaps that is not what he meant but it’s what I came to think of so that’s what I want to talk about. Of course the real problem is getting all/enough/any of the paywall sites to switch. I’ll get back to this but for now le…

With Spotify and Netflix, you measure engagement by how many times a piece was listened to/viewed, and the only measure is popularity. With advertising-based journalism, you measure engagement by clicks - which is bad because it gives us clickbait. You can argue about whether there is clickbait in music and video, but we know that clickbait in journalism is definitely a problem. In an ideal world, there would be a si…

> You can argue about whether there is clickbait in music and video, but we know that clickbait in journalism is definitely a problem.

There definitely is clickbait in video - see Youtube recommendations. In the long run, we should move towards funding content by crowdfunding and open licensing, perhaps combined with a reasonably short embargo period where the content is limited to subscribers. This gives the right long-run incentives, while avoiding either paywalls (after the embargo) or intrusive ad tracking.

Re: The Free and Open Internet

#35

Post by zozbot123 »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #26
webwanderings wrote: post #5

As much as I was in awe of WaPo's tablet app (on Amazon's Fire), I despise their website on the public Internet ever since they have started the paywall flags. Neither NYT, nor WaPo are going to solve the world's publishing business model on the Internet. The author here makes a lot of good points. And someone please tell me exactly why Bezo wrote his letter on Medium and not anywhere else?

if the owner of a newspaper decides what it publishes, that newspaper is no longer considered to have "editorial freedom". This is a very important thing to journalists. I can totally understand why it's less hassle all round for Bezos to publish in Medium, or the NYT, or any other publication than the one he owns.

If the "owners" of a newspaper don't have final authority about what it publishes, they aren't the real owners/publishers in the first place; they just provide funding to it, and perhaps own its branding. It's understandable that journalists like "editorial freedom", because it's a de-facto property right. Who wouldn't like that sort of thing?

Re: The Free and Open Internet

#36

Post by zozbot123 »

baroffoos wrote: post #16
whoisjuan wrote: post #4

I despise paywalls and not because I'm cheap. If I see good value I'd pay for it. I already do it for books, movies and music. But paywalls are not different from the old model of selling print subscriptions, and that's my problem. I don't see the value of paying for an article of the WaPo or NYT. If I susbcribe then I had to consume that media daily and read several articles to make that subscription worth it and I…

lwn.net has a solution to this. Subscribers can create a link that allows non subscribers to read that one article and at the top it has a promo offering a few months free subscription. This allows you to posts articles on reddit/hn and people can still click them and when they see how high quality the articles are they will want to subscribe to see them all. Of course this requires your content to be quality and not…

lwn.net's true solution here is that they open up their archives after a very reasonable delay, right up to the beginning of the site. The "share a subscriber link" is a nice marketing gimmick, but far from essential.

Re: The Free and Open Internet

#37

Post by S_A_P »

I don’t see any way to solve the paywall problem except to have Spotify for news/written content.* Even then there are too many hands reaching into my wallet to the point where I just don’t read some things.

*Until there is a universal web currency that is low friction to send like some of the crypto currencies.

Re: The Free and Open Internet

#38

Post by icebraining »

neom wrote: post #22
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was your startup about?

We're a data management platform for public infrastructure. Think domo or mulesoft meets apigee for government. It certainly hasn't been easy, but I'm proud we've made a lot of progress since that rejection email! :)

I'm curious, did you get other VCs to fund you?

Re: The Free and Open Internet

#39

Post by benj111 »

"but I don’t believe opinion pieces should be behind a paywall"

Why not (assuming you aren't totally against paywalls)?

I can understand being against basic news reporting being behind a paywall, but opinion is like a newpaper's value add, it's USP.

Re: The Free and Open Internet

#40

Post by icebraining »

zozbot123 wrote: post #35
marcus_holmes wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if the owner of a newspaper decides what it publishes, that newspaper is no longer considered to have "editorial freedom". This is a very important thing to journalists. I can totally understand why it's less hassle all round for Bezos to publish in Medium, or the NYT, or any other publication than the one he owns.

If the "owners" of a newspaper don't have final authority about what it publishes, they aren't the real owners/publishers in the first place; they just provide funding to it, and perhaps own its branding. It's understandable that journalists like "editorial freedom", because it's a de-facto property right. Who wouldn't like that sort of thing?

That's the curious thing: the owner does have final authority, but if they choose to exert it, they lose what they own (as the character of the publication changes).

Like the King in the Little Prince, their authority is absolute, but only if they are reasonable :)

Post reply on HN