Because a for profit business is ... for profit. If they manage to stay in the black, I’m “donating” my money into investors’ pockets. If they stay in the red, my donation is meaningless because they’re death spiraling anyway.
No, thank you.
No, thank you.
All I want to do is voluntarily use my money in a way that yields good outcomes for me. It doesn't really matter to me whether BuzzFeed wants to use all $100 I give them, or wants to use $95 of it and send me a tote bag with the other $5 that I'll stick in a closet and never use. It does sort of matter, I guess, that they're not incorporating as a non-profit if there are tax benefits to doing so. It does sort of matter that the money is going to a sustainable company, but maybe paying back investors is the best way to ensure that it's sustainable. But apart from that - why is it better for me if they come up with some artificial way to make things look like a sale?
It’s a tragedy of the commons. Paywalls force everyone who values the content (and can afford it) to contribute. (This also guarantee resources for the organisation, which reinforces the content quality.) Donations, however, risk subsidising free riders who could have paid but didn’t. There are also fewer checks donors have on a private company than a non-profit.
There are plenty of quality journalism non-profits. There is no sane reason to donate to a private company over one of those groups.
I don't understand what the risk of subsidizing free riders is. Is subsidizing free riders a bad thing?
I don't understand why donors having fewer checks matters. Do donors have less power than customers of a paywall?