You are correct. I've corrected it to socialism. Its a forced redistribution of wealth. My point is the gaping logical flaw in the original post. How is this the top comment?
In fact, it is completely devoid of meaning. You're going to have to make an actual case, rather than just engage in red-baiting.
The latter can easily be defrayed with appropriate network technologies, which is along the lines of the original intent of the Web as a platform for sharing information; the former requires some change in how we fund creative work.
I think it's productive to address them separately, as their relative scales are vastly different for digital objects compared to physical ones. Since the incremental costs of producing additional copies of physical objects are so high, it's easy to absorb design costs into the price paid for each copy, but for digital objects this makes much less sense.
I am advocating a humanitarian system of patronage of the arts, yes. I think it's worthwhile to have faith in the ability of people to self-actualize when their basic needs are met, and I'm hoping we can thereby support creative endeavors of modest scale, like writing articles for the Web. A coercive system like communism has been shown to not work for various reasons, but socialist basic income on top of a relatively free market seems viable.
That instead of having the people who are consuming and enjoying the content pay for it, that the entire economic system needs to be overhauled.
I'm not opposed to UBI, but that is clearly not the solution to the problem here, especially because there is no way in hell that UBI will be even close to reality in most nations, let alone the US.
As soon as I see random site asking for money before I even see a content, I just close the page and find another with roughly the same content. Just ask nicely and maybe I'll disable adblock or donate if I feel like the content was worth it.
No you won't. You'll think, "Maybe I'll do it tomorrow," or, "You know, I didn't really enjoy it that much," as you go back to the site every day.
Your statement is just like the people who put a rating for one star on an app, and say, "I'll change it after I've used it if I like it," or, "One Star until Feature X is implemented," when Feature X was never promised as part of the app. And then when the change is made, the rating is never changed.
Proposed micro transaction model won't make me pay for it anyway. Why someone feels entitled to my money, just because they facerolled their keyboard for a half an hour? Sometimes it feels like authors should actually pay me for reading/installing that pile of garbage they call "content".
They're not the ones feeling entitled. You read their content. You used the product of their labor. Isn't the entire basis of Capitalism that you pay for the product of other people's labor?
"Sometimes it feels like authors should actually pay me for reading/installing that pile of garbage they call "content"."
And yet, you're still reading it.