[brad0]

I quite like this idea. I run a basic http server with a nodejs backend. It gets ~3000 hits a month. It costs around $6 on AWS. It costs around 0.2c per request.

It would be simple to build a system that charges per use - most SaaS companies do this.

The problem is that someone is willing to pay for that content and repost it on the "free web". 99% of people will read the free version (see freemium mobile games).

While content creators agree that they would prefer to charge directly for their content, we live in the attention economy. This means if you don't make yourself hyper accessible then people will go to other places to get their dopamine hit.

[nextlevelwizard]

I would never be willing to pay per page view. I could pay some specified price on yearly basis, but per page is way out of the question.

I'm fine with web sites that use adblocker-blockers. I just don't read their content. Imo that is the way of the future. Obviously these "publications" will lose readers, but maybe we also get rid of most of the junk that's floating around.

[HuginnMuninn]

My problem is advertently blocking the small sites just to get at the big sites. It's not fair, and some really good content gets screwed over inadvertently by it. I am certainly guilty of this.

Adblocking is the hammer that thinks everything is a nail

[HuginnMuninn]

Excellent points. Seems I was oversimplifying a single part of a bigger problem.

I want to pay, but never feel satisfied with time-based subscription models, especially for news, would be so happy to pay upfront for 1000 articles, no time limit, yet to see that offered.