[dead]
And you are saying that's a bad thing?
311–320 of 408 posts
[dead]
And you are saying that's a bad thing?
Let's say a journalist writes an excellent article about something political of serious import. I'm fine with paying for that article to get access to it. But, really, the article is a lot more useful to me if other people can access it too. Since everyone can vote, I want the whole populace to be informed, even poor people. I wonder if there is a viable business model where for each article, readers can pay to unloc…
I wonder if there is a viable business model where for each article, readers can pay to unlock it not just for themselves, but for everyone. The price would obviously have to be higher since you aren't just buying it for yourself. But perhaps the sense of "I'm helping build a better-informed world and helping broadcast my values" would encourage people to pay that higher price. What you're asking for is the system we…
This decentralization of power would bring the peoples' focus back to their own neighborhoods, where they can actually hold government officials accountable.
Let's say a journalist writes an excellent article about something political of serious import. I'm fine with paying for that article to get access to it. But, really, the article is a lot more useful to me if other people can access it too. Since everyone can vote, I want the whole populace to be informed, even poor people. I wonder if there is a viable business model where for each article, readers can pay to unloc…
> ...I wonder if there is a viable business model where for each article, readers can pay to unlock it not just for themselves, but for everyone.
Propagation is free; quality journalism is premium.
An interesting idea, nonetheless.
However, in the end, I really don't believe any serious article ever moved the needle of an election. The kind of news that actually make people vote is "(identity) of (skin color) killed (another identity) of (another skin color) brutally," not some analysis over the economical consequence of the cease of Fed independence.
- Surely they can get 30% for each sale right?
- Millions of people visit them and vast majority are not interested in buying a subscription just to read one post
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Rich people buy out newspapers to signal-boost their own preferred messages to the public. Right, but micro level difference matters here. If a middle-class person can help an important story reach an audience, that's helpful for democracy. When a billionaire buys a newspaper, it isn't. This is also why I think suggesting it work like a kickstarter where multiple people can pool money to unlock an article would be…
This is basically political fundraising, where rich people signal-boost their preferred candidate and help them attract lots of donors from the public. I think the fundamental piece you're missing is the Pareto principle. In any popularity contest, the most attention accrues to the most popular. This naturally leads to a power law distribution in popularity.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/18/politics/texas-senate-primary... shows that, in this year's Texas race, the centrists are getting more funding than the culture warriors even though the culture warriors are more popular.
Granted, that's only a single data point.
Do we?
If anything, we know micropayments won't result in quality journalism because mobile games are a thing.
> but mobile game developers have figured out how to get people to spend money on in-app-purchases (IAP), by turning it into a two-step process.
Nah. I mean yes this is one of the psychological tricks that makes players pay on mobile, but it's not that big a deal. The real deal of mobile games:
- Difficult curve design: you know how slot machines show you two matching symbols and one off, instead of three random ones? It has to make the player feel like they can reasonably beat the level, but just "a little bit unlucky..."
- PvP element: Basically pay to win, but presented more like 'grind to win.' Free players can theoratically beat who paid if they grind for needed resources for thousands of hours. So they can tell themselves that they're just 'saving time' when they eventually pay.
- Soft porn: A lot of mobile games from Chinese/Japanes/Korean publishers are just soft porn by western standards.
Are these what we want to replicate on news sites? I think this article sugarcoats the dark patterns in mobile games to convince the author themselves that micropayment won't lead to a race to the bottom.
Let's say a journalist writes an excellent article about something political of serious import. I'm fine with paying for that article to get access to it. But, really, the article is a lot more useful to me if other people can access it too. Since everyone can vote, I want the whole populace to be informed, even poor people. I wonder if there is a viable business model where for each article, readers can pay to unloc…
You'd probably still want to read it straight away rather than wait so you'd pay a small amount for immediate access and commit an additional amount for public access if the threshold is reached. The public commitment could come at the bottom of the article, once you've decided that it's on the public interest.
No one reads print anymore. Most people nowadays consume their news either through a Youtube broadcast or a podcast. The news is produced for free and completely paid for through advertising. The folks using this site, we're in the (rather extreme) minority.
Do you think the category of people that "consume their news" via primarily reading headlines from aggregators (google/apple mobile built-in "news") is significant or no? (this is a big part of my consumption, and is combined with scrolling HN/reddit headlines; often to paywalled sites, which leads me to mostly reading comment discussions on those two sites) (edit: disclaimer after reading a few other comments: I use…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if there is a viable business model where for each article, readers can pay to unlock it not just for themselves, but for everyone. The price would obviously have to be higher since you aren't just buying it for yourself. But perhaps the sense of "I'm helping build a better-informed world and helping broadcast my values" would encourage people to pay that higher price. What you're asking for is the system we…
The solution to increasing interest in local government is to strengthen the federal system (repealing the 17th amendment) & even extending it into state government (state senators should be appointed by, say, the city councils of the 24 largest municipalities in said state). This decentralization of power would bring the peoples' focus back to their own neighborhoods, where they can actually hold government official…
Let's say a journalist writes an excellent article about something political of serious import. I'm fine with paying for that article to get access to it. But, really, the article is a lot more useful to me if other people can access it too. Since everyone can vote, I want the whole populace to be informed, even poor people. I wonder if there is a viable business model where for each article, readers can pay to unloc…
Great point and good idea. Maybe something like the Kickstarter model, where you commit to paying something and it only gets deducted if enough people commit? You'd probably still want to read it straight away rather than wait so you'd pay a small amount for immediate access and commit an additional amount for public access if the threshold is reached. The public commitment could come at the bottom of the article, on…
You could end up with bad actors/PR management types promoting particular stories constantly or to detract from investigation they want less public.