Hacker News Reader

Comment by carlosjobim | Hacker News Reader

The cost per user to maintain these kinds of platforms is extremely low. That's why advertising supported models work. So that means if you charged for a platform, you wouldn't need to charge each user very much on a monthly or yearly basis. Such a platform could still be one that require no technical skills or knowledge from the users, who just want to publish their stuff.

Many people (especially tech people) have an almost psychotic adversity against any kind of paid online services. But do we always have to cater to those people, who'd refuse to pay $10 per year for an ad-free social network? I even suspect that a paid social network would be of higher quality, since the payment is an effective barrier against bots and some low-quality users.

View on HN

> Many people (especially tech people) have an almost psychotic adversity against any kind of paid online services.

> who'd refuse to pay $10 per year

I've not actually seen many services that charge $10 per year. Most instead charge $5 per month / $50 per year. The few services I know of that do charge in the range of what you specify are near universally regarded as really good value.

Yes, $10 per year was just a number, but maybe not too far from the truth. I've seen estimates of $5 to $30 to $300 per user and year for sites like Instagram.

Something for $10 per year is usually a promotion, and maybe a good place to get started. Since the social media giants have been giving it for free for a decade...

>Many people (especially tech people) have an almost psychotic adversity against any kind of paid online services.

That is what confuses me...we are strongly in favor of privacy and tracker blocking, but then get upset when we have to pay money to join a social media. Are there any third options to support platforms that don't require payments, or advertisement viewing?

> we are strongly in favor of privacy and tracker blocking, but then get upset when we have to pay money

Speak for yourself; whenever I have the option to pay to remove ads on a service I get value from, I sign up nigh immediately. And on top of that, I'm always running with aggressive ad and tracker blockers running.

If given the option, I would have paid a small yearly fee to use Instagram back ~10 years ago when the platform was actually decent and didn't do icky things to push engagement up.

Of course, the problem is that most people would not have paid a yearly fee to use Instagram, so if payment were required, it would be a ghost town. And, all things being equal, advertisers would prefer that there isn't an ad-free paid option, since then the ads reach fewer people.

I try to do this but money is limited. If I tried this for every service I use, I would be pretty broke and I am not the only one. The average salary in America is around 40-50k/year. Factor in kids, rent, food, and everything else, paying for no ads gets real expensive real quick. That's why I wish there was a good in-between option that respects privacy and our attention, but still allows sites to make a profit. I want an ad-free internet, but not at the risk of classism and blocking out the lower class that can only afford to use free internet services

If somebody can't afford let's say $20 per year for a service that they enjoy, then it's because that person has decided she doesn't want to afford it. I understand the argument that "It's not worth it", that's for each individual to decide. But then those people shouldn't ask for somebody else to provide it to them for free or without ads. You can have it if you want it, and if you don't want it that much, then do something else with your time, no?

I have never heard any argument about classism or blocking out poor people applied to the devices needed to get online, the computers, the phones. Strange, isn't it?

>then it's because that person has decided she doesn't want to afford it

That is VERY flawed logic that suggests a very privileged life. Growing up my family was downright poor to the point we sometimes lost electricity because we had to buy bologna and bread for supper instead. We used an ancient PC that was given to us to access the internet which was 10$/month for dialup, but even that sometimes got cut out, again, because we needed food. Having spent most of my childhood in a trailer park with disparaged people, it often comes down to a mix of tough situations, bad luck, and poor life choices. Should we really punish them for it by locking things behind a paywall? I don't think so. Also should we have our privacy be violated to support the poor? Also no.

This is why I am trying to brainstorm a third option...one that isn't classist but still allows for privacy. Its a tough question and I am having trouble coming up with solutions...but a third option HAS to exist somewhere.

As for your point about classism not being applied to the devices themselves, that is because you could fall out of a tree and hit five cell phones on your way down. If you know pretty much anyone, they probably have a spare old phone they haven't touched in years they can let you have if you can't afford your own. People also throw them out all the time so you can get one out of the trash and it will still be plenty useable. With public WiFi, no matter how poor you are you can still access the internet. Its a weird time where even the homeless can access Facebook without even having to pay for a device

I don't want to pass judgement on another posters parents, even though you told your personal story here, so I'll answer your comment as best as I can with that in mind. You shouldn't be so eager to pass judgement on me either. You don't know me or my life.

Poverty or a poor upbringing is not a badge of honour, but many people see it as such and maybe you've become accustomed to easily shutting up anybody by saying that they have no idea what it's like being poor. Okay, but how do you make progress from that?

I stand by my point that if somebody can't pay a very small yearly fee for access to the content or service they want, then they weren't that interested. If you are so poor that you can't afford $10 per year, then you have much bigger problems than accessing some online content of interest. The goal for a person in that situation or somebody who wants to help them is to get out of poverty, not to cope.

As for getting the devices for free, the same argument could be applied to online content: You can get information for free at a library, you can socialize with any friend by meeting in person. It's a less convenient experience than having it at home, but using a discarded device is also a less convenient experience.

I find your arguments about "classism" a bit strange. Is it "classism" that some stuff is more expensive in the supermarket? Is it "classism" that the plumber charges his hourly fee to the poor as well as to the rich? That an iPhone costs a thousand dollars?

Is it "classism" that an employer pays a wage that is much lower than what the worker produces? Yes! Is it "classism" that you have to indebt yourself for life to afford a home or pay rent for literally nothing? Yes! Is it classism that a large percentage of the population spend their whole life without ever having done anything productive, because they have unlimited taps for money taken as taxes from workers? Yes!

But instead of being upset at those who are to blame for poverty, it is easier to direct that rage towards some internet poster like me, who dares to suggest that not everything should be free.

Here are what I see as the options to have online services:

1. Current ad-fueled, spam-ridden content and social networks

2. Cheap paid content and social networks

3. Creators work for free, making content for your benefit without any reimbursement. After some time they burn out or can't afford the time it takes.

4. Pirating. Mainstream creators can take it, small time creators go broke.

5. You vote for communism so that content creators get paid by the government and everybody can benefit for free. The content will be what the communist government prefers for you to have.

I prefer option 2.

>Poverty or a poor upbringing is not a badge of honour, but many people see it as such and maybe you've become accustomed to easily shutting up anybody by saying that they have no idea what it's like being poor

I don't view it as a badge of honor, but I know that its almost always privileged people that suggest locking the lower classes out of information. That pisses me off like nothing else. People are all for the poor until it comes down to actually finding solutions.

>As for getting the devices for free, the same argument could be applied to online content

Not particularly unless piracy gets involved. If we lock everything behind a paywall, going to the library or downloading information won't do jack.

>I find your arguments about "classism" a bit strange. Is it "classism" that some stuff is more expensive in the supermarket? Is it "classism" that the plumber charges his hourly fee to the poor as well as to the rich? That an iPhone costs a thousand dollars?

I am talking about information. Not physical goods. You are applying the logic of limited physical goods to online services that are virtually unlimited. Bandwidth is cheap.

As for if #2 gets implemented, I guarantee you that this will not work. Paid content will not be cheap. Never has been and never will. In your other comments you bring up that you foresee services being a mere 10$ a year. The price hikes and predatory practices that online services have had prove that at best you are naive. If #2 happens, I fully support people doing #4.

Now there are other options. Look at Coffeezilla on YouTube...doesn't run ads, but runs entirely off of donations. Other youtubers do the same thing. They set up a patreon, give benefits and incentives to do so, and for those that can't afford to support they watch for free. PBS had a similar thing going when analogue airwaves were legal for TV and still does to some extent with their streaming service. Some shows you have to pay for but the important stuff, such as newshour, are completely free for everyone to watch.

For large scale digital projects, some features could be locked behind a paywall whereas the majority of content is free. That is how Discord makes its money. The ad/paid dichotomy does not exist...there are other options that allow people to freely access content and communicate with people in ways that normally they would not be able to afford.

All I can say is try it yourself if you think donations is a good model. Unless you are huge like Coffezilla, you'll have a very hard time getting donations (or paid subscribers). People tend to fall into the content creator casino trap, since for every person who gets rich or manages to have a sustainable income for their work, there's 1000 who wastes a ton of effort without ever getting anywhere - even when the content is brilliant. It's kind of like Hollywood, a machine that eats dreams to make a few people stars and platform owners filthy rich on free labour.

> If we lock everything behind a paywall, going to the library or downloading information won't do jack.

Go to a library. You can find a whole bunch of paywalled newspapers and magazines to read for free there. Not to mention... books.

> As for if #2 gets implemented, I guarantee you that this will not work. Paid content will not be cheap. Never has been and never will. In your other comments you bring up that you foresee services being a mere 10$ a year.

You can get some excellent content for $10 per year, but a more normal price is around $50 per year - which is still dirt cheap. I chose $10 per year as an example, because that's the price point where people start complaining about how broke they are and can't they just have it for free.

> I am talking about information. Not physical goods. You are applying the logic of limited physical goods to online services that are virtually unlimited. Bandwidth is cheap.

This is the problem right here. The false assumption. People need to spend a whole lot of time and effort and usually also money to create content and information. They need to get paid, they need to sustain themselves. Or you'll just have some hobby bloggers writing about their Raspberry Pi.

Why don't you apply this argument to a restaurant? The ingredients in your meal are cheap, so why should you pay for your meal? Since the labour of the people making and serving apparently has no value. Why aren't Ubers just the cost of gas? Etc.

If small time content creators can't get paid, they'll do something else. That content will not exist to pirate. You will only have ad- and scam-fueled mainstream content. I suspect your answer is probably "Good, fuck them!", but I think that's an unnecessary loss for the world and human knowledge.

>People tend to fall into the content creator casino trap, since for every person who gets rich or manages to have a sustainable income for their work, there's 1000 who wastes a ton of effort without ever getting anywhere

That applies to paywalled content too, my guy. That logic doesn't work.

>You can get some excellent content for $10 per year, but a more normal price is around $50 per year - which is still dirt cheap

I have never seen any content anywhere be available for 10$ a year, and 50$ a year isn't cheap unless you provide a LOOOOOT of content. Even if it is worth it, most people living paycheck to paycheck can't afford that.

>Why don't you apply this argument to a restaurant? The ingredients in your meal are cheap, so why should you pay for your meal? Since the labour of the people making and serving apparently has no value. Why aren't Ubers just the cost of gas? Etc.

All of those things are more expensive than bandwidth and are also scarce physical goods. Yes, I know, labor costs are a thing and so is electricity, etc. Thats why I brought up a mixed-payment model such as Discord. You might not make as much money as Facebook with their ad-based services, but if you want to serve the biggest amount of people that is a logical way to go. The service is free, but non-essential extras cost. Works for both parties.

>If small time content creators can't get paid, they'll do something else. That content will not exist to pirate.

I find that this is rarely true, and is hyperbole at best. Very few small time content creators paywall their content. Rather, they sell merch and accept donations. "But, what if they don't win the lottery and get big?" Yeah, they wouldn't be making that money anyway even if it were paywalled.

As for big time content creators, such as Disney, they also make the vast majority of their money off of merch. The actual ticket sales are a small fraction of total revenue so piracy is an extremely small dent in profit.

I say all this to say this...paywalls are not the answer to this problem. Its not a dichotomy like people want to assume. These past few days I have researched alternative revenue models, even brought up a few in this discussion, and paywalling is too restrictive to make any sort of sense for most consumers that are broke or value their money.

> That applies to paywalled content too, my guy. That logic doesn't work.

Not at all. If you charge for your content or services, you're starting to get an okay reimbursement at some hundreds of subscribers. With ad-supported content on social media, you need to count your audience in tens or hundreds of thousands if you want to make more than $20 per month.

> 50$ a year isn't cheap unless you provide a LOOOOOT of content.

Curiosity Stream have promotions for $10 per year, if you needed an example.

It's all about the quality of content, which it seems you don't care much for. $50 per year is cheap for a local newspaper, for example. Yet, most people think like you and that's why local journalism is dying. The result is that people sit at home and rage about Trump or Biden and know everything about the Titanic submarine, but have no clue about what's going on in their neighborhood or region. Information that is of very high value and can have a huge impact on the person who was too cheap to pay a pittance for it.

> All of those things are more expensive than bandwidth and are also scarce physical goods.

Labour is not a scarce physical good. That's what you're paying for in the restaurant. But if the result is on a screen instead of on a plate, suddenly the creator doesn't deserve to get paid. Maybe a donation, if and only if you feel like it and are in a good mood.

> Very few small time content creators paywall their content. Rather, they sell merch and accept donations.

Just take a look at how many projects abandoned because the creators moved on because they couldn't afford the monetary cost or time. Things that where enjoyed by thousands, but that very few wanted to contribute to, neither in time, money or effort. I've seen this many times. Websites that were huge in user base and impact, getting maybe a couple of hundred dollars per month in donations, while the user base is counted in millions. Or sites giving away great stuff for free for years and then started asking for payment. Do you think anybody is grateful for the years of free content? No, they're outraged that the creators don't continue making the stuff for free anymore. "Greedy", "beggar" and such are what content creators get called when they dare to charge or ask for donations.

Those still there and asking for donations and selling merch are those who didn't move on. Individual paywalls are hard because most creators aren't that technical to be able to set it up. That's why I think paywalls work better as an umbrella service.

> and paywalling is too restrictive to make any sort of sense for most consumers that are broke or value their money.

They aren't consumers if they don't pay, that's the thing. Why should anybody care about them? I hope these kind of people fucking stay on TikTok or go offline. They contribute nothing, why the hell should anybody care about them?

>Not at all. If you charge for your content or services, you're starting to get an okay reimbursement at some hundreds of subscribers.

You seriously think that people are going to pay you without already knowing what you put out? The only people that can get by with paywalling everything already had a following when the content became paywalled. People don't have infinite money to throw at random strangers, so unless you have a hell of a marketing campaign for your indie blog/youtube channel/whatever nobody is going to pay.

> Curiosity Stream have promotions for $10 per year, if you needed an example . . . It's all about the quality of content, which it seems you don't care much for.

Wow, rude. Also Curiosity stream is a terrible example because most of those documentaries are older than the streaming service itself, and are available for free on their official youtube channels. Its only benefit is that it congregates the content into one space.

>Yet, most people think like you and that's why local journalism is dying. The result is that people sit at home and rage about Trump or Biden and know everything about the Titanic submarine, but have no clue about what's going on in their neighborhood or region. Information that is of very high value and can have a huge impact on the person who was too cheap to pay a pittance for it.

Hyperbole. Look, if you are so uninvolved with your community that you need a local newspaper to spoon-feed you what is happening in your own back yard, that is entirely on you. I have never paid for a local newspaper, but because I spend a lot of time in my community, both doing volunteer work and talking with neighbors, I don't need one. If their payment models are so outdated that they cannot stay in business, that is on them. I have no moral obligation to give them money, and neither do you.

>Labour is not a scarce physical good. That's what you're paying for in the restaurant.

IDK about you but I don't go to restaurants unless they offer some unique product. Most people that value money, including myself, eat at home because restaurants are usually a fat waste of money. Just because they are putting in effort does not mean they deserve my money. Thats a logical fallacy.

>Maybe a donation, if and only if you feel like it and are in a good mood.

You seem to completely misunderstand the donation model. It is an extension of the "base is free, extras are more" payment model that has fans pay more. Its not charity. It is a transaction for people who truly love the content and can afford the extra money. Want behind the scenes footage? Extra episodes of your favorite podcast? Go to Patreon and unlock them for whatever amount a month.

>Just take a look at how many projects abandoned because the creators moved on because they couldn't afford the monetary cost or time. Things that where enjoyed by thousands, but that very few wanted to contribute to, neither in time, money or effort. I've seen this many times.

Thats on them for not finding a monetization model that works for them.

>No, they're outraged that the creators don't continue making the stuff for free anymore. "Greedy", "beggar" and such are what content creators get called when they dare to charge or ask for donations.

While name calling is wrong, I agree, it is not the consumer's responsibility to keep a business afloat. If they want donations, like I said earlier, they need to provide incentives to do so. There are plenty of ways to do this depending on the business.

>They aren't consumers if they don't pay, that's the thing. Why should anybody care about them? I hope these kind of people fucking stay on TikTok or go offline. They contribute nothing, why the hell should anybody care about them?

"If they don't have money, why should I care about them?" See, that's the classist attitude I was talking about the other day. For one, consumers only consume content. Its in the name. Payment is entirely coincidental. Other payment models that are not paywalled service everybody. Have an animation series that is popular with kids? Most people wouldn't pay for it, but around Christmastime when bonuses come in, even the completely destitute will buy at least something for their family around that time. There is a reason merch works for the most popular content creators.

It seems to me that #1, you assume consumers have infinite money for infinite streaming services, and that if they don't it is because they don't want it hard enough. And #2, don't seem to understand that effort is not equal to deserving money, especially during times like now when inflation is out of control and few people are willing to spend. And #3, that somehow paywalls make content less spammy and higher quality. None of these are true. Just look at Locals, Substack, Medium, and people that use Patreon to paywall ALL of their content...you will never see content that is lower quality.

Paywalls are one of the least industrious, most outdated, and ineffectual models possible. Unless you have lots of money to magically throw around, its terrible for the consumer and alternatives are superior.

> "If they don't have money, why should I care about them?" See, that's the classist attitude I was talking about the other day.

No, it is "If they don't want to pay me anything, why should I work for free for them?" - because you don't want to acknowledge that an actual person has to do hard work to create things.

> It seems to me that #1, you assume consumers have infinite money for infinite streaming services, and that if they don't it is because they don't want it hard enough.

Nobody has infinite money, and even if they did, they don't have infinite time to spend on consuming content. But there are an infinite amount of consumers, for all intents and purposes, so everybody who produces something good should be ideally be able to find enough paying consumers to continue with their craft. There are niches, simply. But yes, every person has to prioritize and budget how they spend their money, what they want most and what they can skip.

> effort is not equal to deserving money

If what they produce is so bad that they don't deserve getting reimbursed for it, why do you insist that people should have access to it for free? It's like going to the restaurant and saying that the food is so disgusting that I won't pay for it, but please can I have it for free I really want it and hey why are you locking me out?

> You seriously think that people are going to pay you without already knowing what you put out?

That's not how it works. Trials, snippets, limited content is how it works. Depending entirely on what you sell. Word of mouth, etc.

> Wow, rude. Also Curiosity stream is a terrible example because most of those documentaries are older than the streaming service itself, and are available for free on their official youtube channels. Its only benefit is that it congregates the content into one space.

I wasn't intending to be rude. You wrote that there had to be "a looooot" of content behind a paywall for it to be worth paying, so I understood it as that quantity was of more importance than quality. If Curiosity Stream is a terrible example, let me ask you if there is any paid example that you consider good value at all?

> Look, if you are so uninvolved with your community that you need a local newspaper to spoon-feed you what is happening in your own back yard, that is entirely on you.

Good journalism is way better than gossip, because they actually go and interview the people involved, and make room for a more open discussion. But not everybody is interested, not everybody has to be.

> Paywalls are one of the least industrious, most outdated, and ineffectual models possible. Unless you have lots of money to magically throw around, its terrible for the consumer and alternatives are superior.

Paywalls are the only sustainable way forward for creators, but they should be better packaged to benefit both seller and buyer better. Subscription fatigue is real and creators would benefit to team up under umbrellas, so that there is plenty for the consumer within the subscription, and plenty of consumers interested in paying. So instead of convincing 1000 subscribers to pay you $5 each, you'll team up with 9 other creators and have 100 000 subscribers paying $5 each for the umbrella subscription.

> That is what confuses me...we are strongly in favor of privacy and tracker blocking, but then get upset when we have to pay money to join a social media. Are there any third options to support platforms that don't require payments, or advertisement viewing?

There is a bit of a highly honed instinct that paying for it doesn't make you not the product and is thus a rip off. Cable TV has ads and it keeps on creeping in, just like how paying to not be spammed doesn't work because it only signals to the danes that you have the geld and thus are a better target.

Cable ads are always brought up, but what about all the other services you can pya for to not have ads? Fastmail has been providing this service for a long time, for example.

And what is the risk exactly? If a paid service starts introducing ads, you can cancel. You can cancel cable TV as well.

> The cost per user to maintain these kinds of platforms is extremely low

> Many people (especially tech people) have an almost psychotic adversity against any kind of paid online services.

I'd guess it is exactly because we know how cheap running base social network is, how little value is in all the feature and fidelity overhead and realize that ultimately we aren't invited to pay for the service, but for the whole bullshit business built on top of it.

Modern platforms are for most folks tools of compulsive consumption more than they are tools for meaningful communication. More users = more content = more consumption. More consumption means more chances to serve ads for a business built on that model.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com