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

Exploring alternative funding models for the web

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 104 posts

Re: Exploring alternative funding models for the web

#51

Post by ericflo »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #13
kdbg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, here's a thought, Mozilla should create a tip jar non-profit organization. Tipping would be something built into Firefox. If you tip someone, it's sent to the non-profit's bank, and connected to the url. Site owners could then register with the non-profit, in manner similar to Google Webmaster tools, that would let them access the tips they've received. This is kinda what the Basic Attention Token is in the Bra…

> This is kinda what the Basic Attention Token is in the Brave browser The difference is in OP’s proposal one gets money. Brave sends people its token things.

Hacker News seems to really hate cryptocurrencies, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Despite whatever properties you don't like about them, those tokens are being used today and have real value. You can close your eyes but the world will keep spinning.

Re: Exploring alternative funding models for the web

#52

Post by neves »

jerrac wrote: post #4

For a long time I've thought that we need a browser based universal tip jar. Some way that lets me read a blog post, and then tip the site with however much I want. 1 cent, 25 cents, 1 dollar, 200 dollars, any amount. From my understanding of things, the biggest thing in the way is that processing payments costs money. The second thing is making sure the money goes where it is supposed to. With services like Scroll,…

This 2009 argues that the cost cost for the user will prevent it to work: http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/02/why-small-payments-wont...

Re: Exploring alternative funding models for the web

#53

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mantenpanther wrote: post #48
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can redeem them for like, 30 cents, so that's something At costs fixed ( e.g. setting up cryptocurrency trading privileges, going through KYC, clearing receiving cryptocurrency proceeds with your bank) and variable ( e.g. regulatory, accounting, tax wise, et cetera ). To say nothing of volatile, uncertain and likely to get stolen. This is an example of a good idea ruined by shoving cryptocurrencies where they o…

None of the things you mentioned are a real issue if you do a little homework.

> None of the things you mentioned are a real issue if you do a little homework

They’re costs. Material ones, particularly if one is dealing with micropayments. A simpler solution would have been batching payments with real money. There is counterparty risk, but given we’re talking about micropayments that’s negligible compared to the risks and costs cryptocurrencies brought to the table.

Cryptocurrencies don’t deserve to be rejected out of hand. But they don’t need to be unquestioningly choked into otherwise-fine products.

Re: Exploring alternative funding models for the web

#54

Post by hombre_fatal »

gwbas1c wrote: post #16

Honestly, I just want a subscription model like Netflix or Google Music: A nominal monthly fee for ad-free access to most content on most major websites.

Great idea, I volunteer to be the entity that gets to collect tolls for content on the internet.

Re: Exploring alternative funding models for the web

#55

Post by xorcist »

jerrac wrote: post #4

For a long time I've thought that we need a browser based universal tip jar. Some way that lets me read a blog post, and then tip the site with however much I want. 1 cent, 25 cents, 1 dollar, 200 dollars, any amount. From my understanding of things, the biggest thing in the way is that processing payments costs money. The second thing is making sure the money goes where it is supposed to. With services like Scroll,…

The biggest obstacle is likely that you need to be a licenses money transmitter in all major jurisdictions to carry out what you describe.

The second you let an American tip an Iranian there will be trouble somewhere.

It's not an unsolvable problem but you probably need to limit the scope a bit. There's a lot of implementation details hiding behind "accessing the tips they've received". I believe Flattr started out limited to the SEPA area and slowly expanded from there.

Re: Exploring alternative funding models for the web

#57

Post by Fellshard »

jasode wrote: post #5

>One such partner that we are collaborating with is Scroll. [...] The service enables web users to pay for an ad-free experience on their favorite sites, across their devices. To try and understand what this is, I go to the landing page of partner's site, Scroll: https://scroll.com/ Their webpage has no obvious explanation of what this is. Is this a tip jar? Micropayments? Subscription? I then go to Scroll's blog: ht…

Plus, the partners Scroll highlights are... extremely biased, by any standards. That's not terribly reassuring in this circumstance for such a relationship.

EDIT: Tell me where I'm wrong, please. The majority are the Vox collective and close Media Matters affiliates.

Re: Exploring alternative funding models for the web

#58

Post by kdbg »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #53
mantenpanther wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the things you mentioned are a real issue if you do a little homework.

> None of the things you mentioned are a real issue if you do a little homework They’re costs. Material ones, particularly if one is dealing with micropayments. A simpler solution would have been batching payments with real money. There is counterparty risk, but given we’re talking about micropayments that’s negligible compared to the risks and costs cryptocurrencies brought to the table. Cryptocurrencies don’t deser…

I think the cryptocurrency was used so that they could make stronger privacy guarantees than they could using a proper currency.

That seems like a fair trade-off to me, but it is indeed a trade-off between privacy and usefulness it is one I appreciate though.

Re: Exploring alternative funding models for the web

#59

Post by Fellshard »

josteink wrote: post #9
jerrac wrote: post #4

For a long time I've thought that we need a browser based universal tip jar. Some way that lets me read a blog post, and then tip the site with however much I want. 1 cent, 25 cents, 1 dollar, 200 dollars, any amount. From my understanding of things, the biggest thing in the way is that processing payments costs money. The second thing is making sure the money goes where it is supposed to. With services like Scroll,…

> services like Scroll, the site owner has to register with Scroll. Patreon requires the user register to send money to the site owner. And the site has to not challenge the current political climate, or (leftist) political activist will pressure payment providers like MasterCard and Visa into banning the site in question from receiving payment from downstream payment services[1]. > Mozilla should create a tip jar no…

You are spot on, in this case, I fear, given every partner Scroll lists is on the /hard/ left of the political spectrum. That's not a healthy partnership for Mozilla to take on, unless they proactively reach out to other mature publications across the spectrum.

EDIT: Tell me where I'm wrong, please. The majority are the Vox collective and close Media Matters affiliates.

Re: Exploring alternative funding models for the web

#60

Post by ska »

TylerE wrote: post #15
99052882514569 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tips are cool, but a browser-based micro-payments setup will create a more consistent alternative revenue stream.

People have been beating the micro-payments horse since at least the late '90s. I don't get it, at all. No one likes turning every action into a financial decision. History has shown that buffet-style pricing (Netflix, Spotify, et al) is much more appetizing - because you only have to make the decision ONCE. There is no financial pain for consuming content.

People have been talking about it since the (mid) 90's, sure. But nobody has ever implemented it, at least not at any sort of scale. So we can't really say that buffet style has proven "better" - it's just been available.

The problem isn't making things into a financial decision, it's making them into a non-trivial financial decision.

If you want $10/mo for me to access your particular walled garden, I'm going to have to think about it. And if I'm already paying for a couple other walled gardens, the answer is probably "no". But micropayments are supposed to go the other way. If you have an article that looks interesting from the headline and it costs me a nickle to press "read", I'll probably do that without thinking about it at all.

The problem isn't with the idea, the problem is that nobody knows (or wants to know?) how to get the transaction costs down low enough so that the payments are actually "micro". Regulatory bodies don't help here either, as it's not a scenario they've planned around or actually care about.

Post reply on HN