Bootstrapping 10er, a Patreon-similar service for Danish creators
failory.com
failory.com
I actually really like this philosophy. I run a tiny, niche miniatures wargaming blog, and while I have a Patreon account, I don't feel like I really fit with the Patreon "idea" of heavy engagement with patrons.
The only way to achieve this is to donate so little, you don’t get any access to secret material.
Patreon defeats the purpose of Patreon.
Patreon is a nice service and I use it to give back to several projects. But I don't use any of the things (I suppose) I get in return.
How would you feel if the content is still free, but you get a sneak peek at it a bit earlier? I'm currently considering postponing all the schedules I have for seven days, and offering content a week earlier to those who pay. In my mind, that sounds good: the content I create is still free, while there's still an incentive for the consumers to support its creation.
I guess people are more likely to become patrons if there's some reward, and Patreon wants to encourage growth. But in doing so they are creating an environment where there's an expectation that we, the creators, spend precious time making special, walled-off content when the whole point of my needing Patreon is because my content is free. Besides the irony of the situation, I'm too busy also making content for other social media in order to promote my work. Please make it stop!
For example, in this SciShow video => https://youtu.be/fsS6d4byK4A?t=143
- make free content, get free viewers
- promote Patreon to viewers, get patrons
- promote premium content to free viewers, alienate free viewers
- lose free viewers, shrink pool of potential patrons
I guess some pitches are more invasive than others.
He does what could be described as stand up comedy around the japanese language.
And his patreon has comprehensive japanese pronunciation and intonation lessons. https://www.patreon.com/dogen
They're different but related things with different but overlapping audience.
I wish they would be able to accept payments w/o requiring users to run non-free JS.
[0]: https://10er.co/open
The benefit of using the drop-in iframes / client side AJAX is that I get to take money without worrying about PCI compliance -- whereas if I hit some API serverside I'm handling people's credit card information myself, no?
Would be curious to know what options are out there.
User would then submit the form and that would take him to the payment processor. The rest was payment processor calling some webhooks on your server with payment verification/other status. You wouldn't see/handle any ccard info at all.
No iframe trickery, no javascript necessary at all.
Also it's strictly superior to iframe hackery anyway. At least you can check that the site is not trying to scam you for your CC info, which you really can't (as a normal user) when the site is using iframes, because you'll not see iframe's URL in the URL bar.
Not that many people fall for phishing e-mails, for example. It's somewhere between 10-30% based on email type, if that's anyhting to go by.
I couldn't find any research on purely web based phishing.
Our conversion rate got much better when we switched to a single-page purchase flow. My theory is that because "real" sites like Amazon don't force users over to a separate bank page, users have come to expect that experience. Redirecting out to Paypal (or whatever) marks you as a "disreputable" fly-by-night operation in users' minds.
I only guess that this leads to a feeling where when you give a card info to someone, it's like giving them access to your bank account. But 1 in 2 users can't tell a difference between debit and credit, so who knows.
Users don't like giving card info to companies and almost no companies, including very big online stores, handle card info themselves, or use single-page purchase flow. I rememeber only two local websites that didn't redirect me to some payment gateway in the last 10 years. Amazon is not a thing here at all.
JS is he way Stripe works and without Stripe there's no 10er. You're the first one to mention this though. So while I agree that it's not without problems, I'm not sure it's holding that many donators back.
For example Subscribestar can no longer accept paypal payments. [1]
I have no plans to add anything but Stripe, no. I realize how vulnerable that makes me and my relationship with them but you have to trust someone. I have used Paypal before and I didn't like it at all.
For whoever is interested: this is the (Google translated) text in the Terms of 10er:
"The service must not be used for any illegal activity. Nor should the service be used in connection with violent, hateful, racist or similar activities. Brainbow defines in its own right what can be classified as being in one of these categories."
You are indeed not a competitor for Patreon. The biggest problem people seem to have with Patreon is exactly this: every company creating its own definition of hate speech, which could result in their customers (creators) being cut off their income for things they say, even on other platforms. Which effectively creates censorship, and a growing administrative cost for all companies.
Why not base it on what is legal by law in your country? Require a court order to have things removed.
Take Paypal and who ever to court in your country if they deny you service because of this and threaten to have their permits to do business in your country removed.
I’m not censoring nor silencing nor putting anyone in prison. But I’m politely refusing to receive your money and work with you.
Money isn’t everything.
Payment processors currently have too much power. They should be legally refrained from choosing their customers, just like telecom companies for example. In most free countries telecom companies are not allowed to refuse/block customers based on people's political views. And rightly so.
If you want free speech you need to protect all of it.
First, though fascism is isn't particularly well-defined, it is definitely better defined than that (since you're describing a tactic rather than an ideology), and that just isn't what fascism means[0], second, even if it was, it would still be possible to advocate for it without crossing that line and leave facilitation to other (usually covert) channels.
Still, although advocacy for fascist views would be legal, I have no particular problem with public platforms restricting speech that promotes those views[1].
The analogy elsewhere in this thread to the phone system is flawed, as that implies regulating private speech.
OTOH, so long as money equals speech, there is an argument for creating payment infra that is more along the lines of a public utility or common-carrier for transactions that may not discriminate, since there are other categories of public speech besides fascism that are often unjustly denied access to payment infra.
Missing from that page is the preamble in which he describes growing up under Mussolini.
> Purported "speech" that poses a clear and present danger is illegal.
Speech that leads to or implies violence at slightly greater remove is, however. Circulating pictures of targets with people's faces on; calling for violence or that people should arm themselves against an outgroup; that kind of thing.
Following this reasoning, GP's stance enables fascism.
Ah, why look at history when we can have hypothesis! I mean, you could have chosen some wrong or out of context examples of fascism to cite, but instead it's much easier to just pretend, right?
I gave up
Inspecting the HTML, the rendering seems to be blocked by a script loading the google fonts.
Huh. Wonder what this is doing here. Probably hiding the whole website while googlefonts finishes loading.
<style>.async-hide { opacity: 0 !important} </style>I honestly wonder why he did not reach out to a few people, who were passionate about the same thing, to help build this service further. As plenty here have already noticed, the website has some quirks right now that might take months to fix, if ever, considering it is just one person running it.
However, I hope all that will turn around, as he gets more press interest, and others might offer to help. And in a year's time, it has become something people might actually want to rely on. I wish him a lot of luck.
Given the events of the past month or so, I wouldn't be completely sure about the future of patreon. It's definitely shown the way forward in terms of supporting creators, but the repercussions of their actions seem to be gaining a lot of traction and putting doubt into trusting patreon for people who supported creators via the platform in the past.
the repercussions of their actions seem
to be gaining a lot of traction
Plus there seems to be a lot of disquiet about Patreon and people trying to set up competition for them (SubscribeStar, Dave Rubin/Jordan Peterson's project) which seems to be gaining a lot more attention than it would have otherwise - up to this point many people (myself included) were completely happy with Patreon.