Hacker News Reader

Comment by PaulHoule | Hacker News Reader

That price is too low.

Maybe for posting, but 10c to consume or upvote content might be too high. Think about how many pieces of content you consume on a Facebook feed or on your reddit homepage. And 1k upvotes would translate to $100...sounds rich to me. Wonder how they intend on preventing spamming posts / content farming / gaming the system in that kind of environment.

It might stop eg "share to pray" posts and viral fake news.

"Reply with your prayers to help little Billy afford chemo"

TED charges $4000 to listen live and meet people.

After they have their conferences where all the rich people support them, they give the content away to the masses for free. The point to take away from this is that some people are willing to pay a huge amount of money for "networking".

We think that might be true. We're very market-minded and intend to give our users the power to set prices wherever possible. We'll let the natural price arise.

Here is an idea for you Ryan: perhaps you could tie the money setting to an article's reach... that way you make everyone an owner of the page and strive for highest quality together. That's a more dynamic setup that rewards high quality - in the article as well as the comment section.

>That price is too low.

An alternative was proposed, if you want to spend more ;) :

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14761633

Courtesy of the Wayback Machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170713150307/https://medium.co...

https://web.archive.org/web/20170903044028/https://affluentc...

Or it's too high because why should anyone pay $0.10 to post on a nerdy and tiny social network when Twitter is free and you can reach hundreds of millions?

Difficult balancing act.

Depending on the nerdy and tiny social network, I would pay way more than ten cents.

app.net was about as nerdy and "expensive" as you could realistically get and it's dead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com