[graeham]

I think they're on the right track with a wide pay-for-content subscription, but I think they're missing that what people don't like is being tracked, not ads themselves.

Ads can be ignored easily enough, especially with a blocker. Why pay for a service that you can get with an ad blocker?

What's needed is a Spotify premium-style model, where a monthly subscription is paid by the user, which is distributed to the content producers. (Or perhaps a tiered or capped system, where payment is tied to amount of content consumed). Such a system would also enforce better content being produced, with linkbait and sites designed for users to erroneously click on ads becoming non-viable.

Single-source subscriptions (like a newspaper would be) don't make sense for the internet. Distribution costs are negligible compared to print, and ease of accessing content is not tied to geography.

[mschuster91]

> What's needed is a Spotify premium-style model, where a monthly subscription is paid by the user, which is distributed to the content producers.

Remember flattr? IIRC it failed because a lack of adoption and because micropayments are expensive (fuck banks for this one).

[graeham]

Hadn't heard of them before to be honest. With a quick look on their Wikipedia page, perhaps they were too early for post-Wikileaks concern around privacy?

Bank payments may be better now too, with more competition and greater use of non-traditional currency (ie Bitcoin).