8 ms·

https://archive.is/uxPdY https://archive.is/uxPdY

by amatix 3y ago

delegate 3y ago
[flagged]
- cageface 3y ago
  If you have a better solution to the problem of making journalism financially viable I'm sure a lot of people would be very interested to hear it.
  - j0057 3y ago
    Micro payments, I might want to pay some small amount for this one article but not subscribe to the whole publication.
    - chillingeffect 3y ago
      Yup. I'd pay 10-20 cents. And if i could pay $1-$2.00 for a good article to let the next 5-10 ppl read it on me i'd do that too.
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      if that were an economical model for the Wall Street Journal, they would do it. the truth is that microtransactions would cannabilize their existing subscriber base more than raise revenue.
    - cageface 3y ago
      This has been tried many times and nobody has been able to make it work. What would you do differently?
- IAmGraydon 3y ago
  I don’t know. It’s almost like people need to get paid for their work. The real question is why do you feel so entitled that you believe that you should get everything for free?
  - stavros 3y ago
    Can you please let me know where in the following error message I'm getting I can find the instructions to pay the WSJ? > You have been blocked. > Why? Something about the behaviour of the browser has caught our attention. > There are various possible explanations for this: > You are browsing and clicking at a speed much faster than expected of a human being. > Something is preventing JavaScript from working on your computer. > There is a robot on the same network IP as you.
    - criley2 3y ago
      You know what the error message means, you've decided to use a non-fully-featured browser to visit their webpage. It's like taking the wheels off of your car and then complaining that your immobile vehicle isn't eligble for the drive-thru lane at a restaurant. They have a print edition that you're welcome to buy from any local store that sells newspapers.
      - stavros 3y ago
        I'm sorry, I'll tell Mozilla that Firefox is non-fully-featured right away. HN doesn't seem to mind it, I don't see why showing me a bunch of text is such an insurmountable technical challenge for a website. Also, to continue the car analogy, it's more like turning your headlights off and the drive-through complains that your car is nonstandard and won't let you order.
        criley2 3y ago
        Why would you tell Mozilla that? Their firefox browser works just fine with WSJ, both to display articles and to subscribe to their digital offerings. As is nearly always the case: the user is at fault. To fix the car analogy that you maliciously broke, it's like a car that you took the engine out of, and then complain that it doesn't drive. But if anyone asks why your car is broken, you weirdly pretend that you didn't take the engine out of it, and make asinine statements about how "it has wheels, why doesn't it roll" knowing full well why it doesn't.
- tsukikage 3y ago
  Journalists need to eat and advertising-funded websites rely on people clicking on the adverts and spending money. People are strangely reluctant to do this. As we all know, the true reason people don't buy stuff from online adverts is that the adverts just aren't loud, visible and obnoxious enough. If we make it literally physically impossible to look at anything else or navigate away, people will buy some of what we're peddling.
  - barfbagginus 3y ago
    Journalists don't need to eat though. They can be replaced by fully automated open source and free AI news agent self loops run by volunteer computation resources. If they're going to exploit our attention and refused implement free and open source newsagents on their own, but instead extort us for subscriptions and steal our attention with unwanted ads, then we have no choice but to displace them with our own free and liberated solutions to the news problem. Their time is marked.
- amelius 3y ago
  Yeah, it would be great if this was integrated in browsers :) PS: I'm ok with paying for news, but not like this.
  - barfbagginus 3y ago
    I'm not okay with paying with news. If I have to pay with news by losing attention, it is far better to simply have no news. Who the heck cares what Boeing did this or that if it requires guzzling a hot steamy load of ads or purchasing a subscription. I definitely don't want that. This is part of why user operated independent and free and open source AI news agents are going to make things a lot better.

https://archive.is/uxPdY https://archive.is/uxPdY

by amatix 3y ago

https://archive.is/uxPdY https://archive.is/uxPdY

delegate 3y ago

[flagged]

cageface 3y ago
If you have a better solution to the problem of making journalism financially viable I'm sure a lot of people would be very interested to hear it.
- j0057 3y ago
  Micro payments, I might want to pay some small amount for this one article but not subscribe to the whole publication.
  - chillingeffect 3y ago
    Yup. I'd pay 10-20 cents. And if i could pay $1-$2.00 for a good article to let the next 5-10 ppl read it on me i'd do that too.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    if that were an economical model for the Wall Street Journal, they would do it. the truth is that microtransactions would cannabilize their existing subscriber base more than raise revenue.
  - cageface 3y ago
    This has been tried many times and nobody has been able to make it work. What would you do differently?
IAmGraydon 3y ago
I don’t know. It’s almost like people need to get paid for their work. The real question is why do you feel so entitled that you believe that you should get everything for free?
- stavros 3y ago
  Can you please let me know where in the following error message I'm getting I can find the instructions to pay the WSJ? > You have been blocked. > Why? Something about the behaviour of the browser has caught our attention. > There are various possible explanations for this: > You are browsing and clicking at a speed much faster than expected of a human being. > Something is preventing JavaScript from working on your computer. > There is a robot on the same network IP as you.
  - criley2 3y ago
    You know what the error message means, you've decided to use a non-fully-featured browser to visit their webpage. It's like taking the wheels off of your car and then complaining that your immobile vehicle isn't eligble for the drive-thru lane at a restaurant. They have a print edition that you're welcome to buy from any local store that sells newspapers.
    - stavros 3y ago
      I'm sorry, I'll tell Mozilla that Firefox is non-fully-featured right away. HN doesn't seem to mind it, I don't see why showing me a bunch of text is such an insurmountable technical challenge for a website. Also, to continue the car analogy, it's more like turning your headlights off and the drive-through complains that your car is nonstandard and won't let you order.
      - criley2 3y ago
        Why would you tell Mozilla that? Their firefox browser works just fine with WSJ, both to display articles and to subscribe to their digital offerings. As is nearly always the case: the user is at fault. To fix the car analogy that you maliciously broke, it's like a car that you took the engine out of, and then complain that it doesn't drive. But if anyone asks why your car is broken, you weirdly pretend that you didn't take the engine out of it, and make asinine statements about how "it has wheels, why doesn't it roll" knowing full well why it doesn't.
tsukikage 3y ago
Journalists need to eat and advertising-funded websites rely on people clicking on the adverts and spending money. People are strangely reluctant to do this. As we all know, the true reason people don't buy stuff from online adverts is that the adverts just aren't loud, visible and obnoxious enough. If we make it literally physically impossible to look at anything else or navigate away, people will buy some of what we're peddling.
- barfbagginus 3y ago
  Journalists don't need to eat though. They can be replaced by fully automated open source and free AI news agent self loops run by volunteer computation resources. If they're going to exploit our attention and refused implement free and open source newsagents on their own, but instead extort us for subscriptions and steal our attention with unwanted ads, then we have no choice but to displace them with our own free and liberated solutions to the news problem. Their time is marked.
amelius 3y ago
Yeah, it would be great if this was integrated in browsers :) PS: I'm ok with paying for news, but not like this.
- barfbagginus 3y ago
  I'm not okay with paying with news. If I have to pay with news by losing attention, it is far better to simply have no news. Who the heck cares what Boeing did this or that if it requires guzzling a hot steamy load of ads or purchasing a subscription. I definitely don't want that. This is part of why user operated independent and free and open source AI news agents are going to make things a lot better.