Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
1–10 of 64 posts
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#2Every media and entertainment format is catching up to where video games were in 2007. Basically discovering Steam.
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#3(2017)
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#4This sells me further on the model, actually.
I would be 100% for paying a monthly fee on Twitch that gets sliced up proportionally to how much I watch each channel. While it seems to work for them, and clearly lots of people pay to be part of a club and get noticed by their streamer, there’s no way I’m paying $7.50CAD per channel. So I end up paying nothing at all.
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#5This sells me further on the model, actually. I would be 100% for paying a monthly fee on Twitch that gets sliced up proportionally to how much I watch each channel. While it seems to work for them, and clearly lots of people pay to be part of a club and get noticed by their streamer, there’s no way I’m paying $7.50CAD per channel . So I end up paying nothing at all.
this exists: https://www.twitch.tv/turbo
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#6This sells me further on the model, actually. I would be 100% for paying a monthly fee on Twitch that gets sliced up proportionally to how much I watch each channel. While it seems to work for them, and clearly lots of people pay to be part of a club and get noticed by their streamer, there’s no way I’m paying $7.50CAD per channel . So I end up paying nothing at all.
This sounds a lot like the Brave browser model. I am unsure how well the company is doing, and how well the users who opted in to receive BATs are doing, though.
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#7This sells me further on the model, actually. I would be 100% for paying a monthly fee on Twitch that gets sliced up proportionally to how much I watch each channel. While it seems to work for them, and clearly lots of people pay to be part of a club and get noticed by their streamer, there’s no way I’m paying $7.50CAD per channel . So I end up paying nothing at all.
this exists: https://www.twitch.tv/turbo
Do the streamers get 50% of that $12 like they would a subscription?
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#8This sells me further on the model, actually. I would be 100% for paying a monthly fee on Twitch that gets sliced up proportionally to how much I watch each channel. While it seems to work for them, and clearly lots of people pay to be part of a club and get noticed by their streamer, there’s no way I’m paying $7.50CAD per channel . So I end up paying nothing at all.
This sounds a lot like the Brave browser model. I am unsure how well the company is doing, and how well the users who opted in to receive BATs are doing, though.
I feel like the missing piece is transparency. Otherwise it’s like tipping: a lingering skepticism that funny financials are happening in the background.
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#9> the focus seems to be on only the publications from traditional publishers, like these...
All of these are entertainment publications. I'm really not too concerned with how it's paid for, whether its ads, subscription fees, or a Youtuber doing it for free. The news I worry about is the eat-your-vegetables sort that is valuable for society, but few people actively seek out. Public funding doesn't work well because its subject to political whims, ad funding doesn't work because it doesn't drive enough volume, and subscriber funding doesn't work because not enough people actually want to pay for quality reporting that isn't biased towards entertainment.
Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)
#10The real problem is presuming the profit model for news is a good idea.
It's going to always tend towards quick-turn around, low-effort sensationalism because that's the most profitable configuration.
Speculation, accusation, defamation, and conspiracies will always get more eyeballs then careful balanced well researched reporting. Lying about something now is cheaper and more profitable than sending a reporter out and getting the facts tomorrow.
Especially after the rise of the modern citizen journalist where the costs of video hardware, production, and distribution are near zero. Naturally people doing near zero-cost content production quickly flooded the market and Bullshit will always be the cheapest content to produce.
There has to be a model where such manipulative lying doesn't pay off. We have to somehow separate how we've structured news from how we've structured entertainment.