this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2025
100 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

4525 readers
250 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In discussing where we went wrong, a panel of luminaries, including Vint Cerf and the Internet Archive's Brewster Kahle, sees three Cs: centralization, copyright, and competition.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yeah the implicit argument, to me at least, was that all journalism should be free. Which, sure but that's a way larger discussion than just the internet. We'd need radically new funding models etc.

[–] jqubed@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

It used to be if you wanted the detailed news you had to pay for it, either a subscription or 25¢ for that day’s edition ($1 on Sunday). But it was really easy to get that day’s edition: just stick a quarter in the dispenser.

We need to find a way to make that work. I wouldn’t mind paying 50¢ or $1 for access to one day’s-worth of articles, but the payment processing fees eat away all the money on such small transactions. I also don’t necessarily want to set up an account for some random local newspaper on the other side of the country that I’m looking at this one time and might never look at again. It feels like these should be solvable problems, though.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 1 points 4 hours ago

Great points!

It feels like these should be solvable problems, though.

I absolutely fully agree. Honestly, I think some sort of micro transaction system would be the answer to ubiquitous advertising etc.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah exactly, well said. I think for a lot of people the advent of paywalls felt like taking away a free thing, instead of a return to the norm. Personally when it comes to journalism I prefer a paywall to advertiser-supported.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 4 points 22 hours ago

Yeah, I think you got it exactly. Once we get used to a thing for free, we get very annoyed when it is no longer free.

And fully agree with paywalled/paid journalism versus the hellish race to the bottom engendered by advertiser supported news.