I'd like to support news sites behind paywalls by reading a single article for $0.25 but I'm not willing to pay $10 a month for a subscription if I just want to read a random article every once in a while.
I wish I had a better way to support content sites without paying for individual websites. I’m guessing this would never happen, but I would definitely pay a single monthly fee to get access to all the major news sites and if it helped ensure some level of journalistic integrity.
I am a working professional but I have always resisted buying a subscription because I don't want one single publication to become my de facto news source.
I would love if I could pay $20 to $30 per month to some aggregator that lets me read articles from Al Jazeera, NY Times, WSJ, BBC, and a selection of other diverse sources.
I have reached the point where I think that if a respectable news organization went subscription-only (i.e. no ads, no clickbait, no free content at all), I'd jump on board. I want to be the customer.
I would pay a decent chunk of money per month if I could get access to all news sources. But my news consumption is never done by going to a source. I just want to read articles linked from HN or Google News or Reddit, etc.
I need something like Spotify for news sources. Ad-free access to any content. I’ll pay for that. But I’m not going to subscribe to each source individually.
Edit: I would want a way to avoid paying for clickbait that I accidentally click on. Maybe sources could be paid per active-viewing-minute and definitely not for clicks.
Maybe this is what people want but maybe it isn't. I'm not paying a subscription because I find the news I want to read for free anyway. There are a zillion sites reporting exactly the same things.
If I could rig my browser to pay 1 cent for every newspaper article I read, I would happily do so. The biggest issue with paying for news is that you are reduced to a small handful of sources. I would like to read a couple of articles from a hundred sources, not a hundred articles from one source. Not sure this platform solves the problem, but it would be a game changer if it did.
I wish there was a pay-as-you-read plan (e.g. 10c an article) for news. I just don't spend enough time on one news source to justify a subscription cost
or any open micropaymemts type platform. I always expected the journalists to make such a thing-pay whatever $50 bucks a month and it is split between the content publishers you visit. Better than a few people like me subscribing to as many papers as i can and most people being the prey of the asveetisers and having terrible roadblocks to just learning the news.
absolutely. i would not be willing to pay, but i would be happy to donate in the interests of keeping the news both high-quality and free for anyone to read sans ads.
IMO the problem is really committing to a single news source.
I'd happily pay for news. I just don't want to pay to, say, the NYT just to read a couple of pieces a week. (Ignoring the NYT shady unsubscribe practices)
The solution seems to be either micropayments or some form of paid news aggregation.
I pay for a Coil[1] subscription which solves micropayments, unfortunately very few sites have implemented it (and no major news sites AFAIK).
I’d love something like that. Even if I had to buy say $10 a month and had some credits to burn down each month. I don’t however want to subscribe to every news outlet. There are only a handful of articles I’d read from each.
reply