[theseatoms]

"If people are to be expected to put up with turning on a computer to read a screen, they must be rewarded with deep and extremely up-to-date information that they can explore at will."

Incredible how far we've come from "put up with turning on a computer."

"But within a year the mechanisms will be in place that allow content providers to charge just a cent or a few cents for information. If you decide to visit a page that costs a nickel, you won't be writing a check or getting a bill in the mail for a nickel. You'll just click on what you want, knowing you'll be charged a nickel on an aggregated basis."

I can't decide if this sort of micropayment-driven internet would be heaven or hell.

[sogen]

Facebook, Gmail, Google, etc., already do this, charging advertisers nickels to blast people using those platforms.

[theseatoms]

I would classify Facebook and Google as advertisers themselves, but that's semantics, I guess. Point taken.

There are effectively two classes of internet citizens: those who block ads, and those who do not. Users like myself free ride off the eyeballs of this second class.

Imagine if ad-blockers were included in internet browsers by default. It would cripple the economics of the internet. (Is this the explicit reason for Chrome? Because it look like a great defensive maneuver.)