[Mark_Book]

what's the incentive to set it up in the first place if you're not a content creator? Non content creators will mentally file it in their 'something virtuous to do when I have enough money' aka never_never. The content creators who end up being net donors will stop because their motivation was to make money not give it. This scheme and the optimism surrounding it sounds like a throwback to the internet bubble.

[steveklabnik]

Supporting content authors. No, really, I'm serious.

I made a comment below about this, you're thinking about the wrong metric. It doesn't matter if everyone does this, it matters if enough do to sustain whatever projects are using it. I myself have made money on a project through solely donations. Not a ton, but that project is also on hold for a minute.

I think you're being overly cynical, and you think I'm being overly optimistic. The truth, as always, will lie somewhere in the middle.

[Groxx]

The first time I activated my account was to send money to Vimcasts, which I'll probably do monthly now that it's set up. If I find nothing else flattrable (I'm picky with my money), they'll get a decent amount of money out of me, and I'll call it worthwhile.

[spacemanaki]

Vimcasts is so good, I likely would have done the same, if I hadn't just donated via PayPal.

[steveklabnik]

This is exactly what made me put money on my account, actually.

[gojomo]

what's the incentive to set it up in the first place if you're not a content creator?

If/when there's enough uptake among the creators and the especially-charitable, other small nudges can be used to pressure others to sign up.

The obvious one I can think of is a clickthrough interstitial ad that Flattrers auto-skip (even without having tipped a site). Another would be revealing posts X hours/days early to Flattrers -- giving them a jump on trends and cross-linking.

Nothing the skilled couldn't get around with Firebug/etc, sure, but just enough to remind people they get better content faster if they contribute to creators.