5 ms·
> there should be some cost for sending traffic somewher So now, because of bad actors, I need to pay for the privilege of watching a website or using a servic
by klez 17d ago
> there should be some cost for sending traffic somewher
So now, because of bad actors, I need to pay for the privilege of watching a website or using a service that was meant to be free? No, thanks.
I don't have a solution, but "break how the web currently works" is not one I would accept all willy nilly.
EDIT: yes, I realize we already broke the web (with Anubis, cloudflare, recaptcha etc) but I think we should resist slowly breaking it further.
- feelamee 17d ago> So now, because of bad actors, I need to pay for the privilege of watching a website or using a service that was meant to be free? No, thanks. First of all - I suppose it should be very cheap. So, real humans will not pay much. Second - why do u think that websites are meant to be free? They provide some service, so its a rather strange that the internet is so free (in both senses). I think, this freeiness is allowed to greatly speed up popularization. But for me is obvious that it can demand payment for service. And third - service owner really meant it to be free, I don't see any problems with this in my idea. It can still provide free service.
- klez 17d agoI'm not saying websites can't demand payments for service, I'm just saying it's bad if it's a necessary fix for "scrapers are destroying the basic social contract of the web".
- inigyou 17d agoThe internet is already like that, but for some reason the payment only extends as far as the recipient's ISP, not the actual recipient. Most senders pay a flat rate, but their ISP doesn't.