6 ms·

uhm, to pay for things without using your credit card?

by dfas23 4y ago

omginternets 4y ago
I remember when web3 used to mean opposing the de facto requirement to pay for the information. This goes against my principles.
- olah_1 4y ago
  Who creates/curates the information? They gotta eat...
  - omginternets 4y ago
    Not everything has to be commercial. And in fact, most of the good stuff — e.g. HN comments — are not commercial. I don’t mind paying for certain things, but the crypto trend is very much pay to play.
    - olah_1 4y ago
      > Not everything has to be commercial. HN comments aren't free to host though. There is compute involved. How are they paying for that compute? If it is out of boredom and good will, that's cool. But I very much am keeping that in mind when I comment here. I don't expect a hobby site to stay up long term because they'll just shut it down when it stops being fun. If HN is paying for this from advertisements and job postings, well there is your answer. It is commercial.
      - omginternets 4y ago
        Any way you want to stretch it, HN is not pay-to-play. I am not against commerce; I am against a pay-to-play internet.
        olah_1 4y ago
        You can’t get around the fact that HN is pay to play too though. that is my point. You aren’t paying a fraction of a cent to post comments, but you’re paying in other ways. You just prefer the business model of HN, but i find the fraction of a cent model to be more straightforward and clear.
        stjohnswarts 4y ago
        You can't win this argument, hackernews isn't "pay to play". You are currently playing with it and you didn't pay even a microtransaction. Why do you keep saying it is pay to play? For whatever reason HN providers are doing it as a free service and you aren't paying anything.
        olah_1 4y ago
        HN sells me as their audience to advertisers right? Would you say that Youtube is “free” as well? Many people would simply prefer a more transparent / straight forward business model and I don’t think they are wrong for having that preference.
        omginternets 4y ago
        You either don't know what "pay to play" means, or you're being disingenuous.
        olah_1 4y ago
        Have you heard the phrase “time is money”? I would say that Youtube is pay to play as well. You’re just paying with your attention to their advertisers. I don’t think this logic is misplaced. HN has the same business model as all “free” tech platforms, doesn’t it?
- ChadNauseam 4y ago
  I totally disagree. When you visit a website, you're imposing a cost on the website owner because they have to pay for bandwidth and servers to process your request. In my view, crypto has always been about incentive alignment. Filecoin doesn't really work, but their idea was that when requesting a file a small fee to you pay the person who serves it to you. Overall this makes more sense to me than having some guy pay to host the file himself and hope that he decides to keep doing that until the end of time.

uhm, to pay for things without using your credit card?

by dfas23 4y ago

uhm, to pay for things without using your credit card?

I remember when web3 used to mean opposing the de facto requirement to pay for the information. This goes against my principles.

olah_1 4y ago
Who creates/curates the information? They gotta eat...
- omginternets 4y ago
  Not everything has to be commercial. And in fact, most of the good stuff — e.g. HN comments — are not commercial. I don’t mind paying for certain things, but the crypto trend is very much pay to play.
  - olah_1 4y ago
    > Not everything has to be commercial. HN comments aren't free to host though. There is compute involved. How are they paying for that compute? If it is out of boredom and good will, that's cool. But I very much am keeping that in mind when I comment here. I don't expect a hobby site to stay up long term because they'll just shut it down when it stops being fun. If HN is paying for this from advertisements and job postings, well there is your answer. It is commercial.
    - omginternets 4y ago
      Any way you want to stretch it, HN is not pay-to-play. I am not against commerce; I am against a pay-to-play internet.
      - olah_1 4y ago
        You can’t get around the fact that HN is pay to play too though. that is my point. You aren’t paying a fraction of a cent to post comments, but you’re paying in other ways. You just prefer the business model of HN, but i find the fraction of a cent model to be more straightforward and clear.
        stjohnswarts 4y ago
        You can't win this argument, hackernews isn't "pay to play". You are currently playing with it and you didn't pay even a microtransaction. Why do you keep saying it is pay to play? For whatever reason HN providers are doing it as a free service and you aren't paying anything.
        olah_1 4y ago
        HN sells me as their audience to advertisers right? Would you say that Youtube is “free” as well? Many people would simply prefer a more transparent / straight forward business model and I don’t think they are wrong for having that preference.
        omginternets 4y ago
        You either don't know what "pay to play" means, or you're being disingenuous.
        olah_1 4y ago
        Have you heard the phrase “time is money”? I would say that Youtube is pay to play as well. You’re just paying with your attention to their advertisers. I don’t think this logic is misplaced. HN has the same business model as all “free” tech platforms, doesn’t it?
ChadNauseam 4y ago
I totally disagree. When you visit a website, you're imposing a cost on the website owner because they have to pay for bandwidth and servers to process your request. In my view, crypto has always been about incentive alignment. Filecoin doesn't really work, but their idea was that when requesting a file a small fee to you pay the person who serves it to you. Overall this makes more sense to me than having some guy pay to host the file himself and hope that he decides to keep doing that until the end of time.