Well, that's where the monetary contributions would come in.
There would be a subscription service like Netflix. And people would contribute all kinds of things to it, including citizen journalism with their own cellphone videos etc. But it would be collaborative, not competitive. Only one story per news item.
I'd like to hear what you all think about this. I've been thinking about ways to monetize media (https://medium.com/@johnbiggs/ill-pay-you-to-watch-videos-16...) because the old models aren't working. Mic is shutting down, Steemit is in a hole, and Civil isn't paying journalists. Clearly crypto is part of the answer but how? Anyway, I've created a service that pays you for watching videos. You can upload videos for a few fractions of a BTC and each viewer gets another smaller fraction. It's instant but it requires the viewer to keep facing the video. Lots of potential holes but it's something I wanted to try.
That would be more along the lines of Patreon of media (which already kinda exists) vs. Spotify, which is most definitely not direct payments to creators.
The article talks about charging the content creators. I wonder if there is also a market for charging the content consumers where they get Chronological feed or the ability to use custom clients.
I'm hoping it would be something based on micropayments, maybe through a service like flattr. That would keep content accessible (for a small, affordable fee) and completely block out the bad actors (i.e. advertisers).
Very cool. I envision a future where everyone gets their media through an "agent" that is truly tailor made for them. This looks like a step in that direction.
How will Prismatic monetize? It would be a shame to see a service such as this offer featured articles or some other form of influence for pay. In fact, it would defeat the purpose of having something like this that would bring smaller media companies to readers who want the content they provide.
but are people ready to pay for content? and who pays for the assistant? or are people going to just use a free assistant that makes deals with what ever sponsor pays the most?
Tipjoy is actually just the first user of a system I'm calling Millipaid. It will be a completely customizable micropayments solution. Before then, we'll release Tipjoy Platform. The site owners get a cut, and the content creators get a cut. It will be up to the platform to decide the distribution. Video sites could really benefit from it. So could sites like thesixetyone, twitter, etc.
> A universal pay as you consume. That is, one "wallet" with "credits" but many / all sites would be something new.
So if i want to read one article from website XYZ, i may need to pay 00001 credits and if I want to read another article from website yyy, i may need to pay 00002 credits?
How would yyy or xyz content creators/journalists actually make a living from this, though?
It could go the cable television route, where gatekeepers get paid for monthly subscriptions to 200 channels. Similarly, on the web gatekeepers like Facebook could get paid for monthly subscriptions to content from 200 websites (more than anyone could ever need, right?).
I welcome this idea and will gladly pay immediately when they launch. After that, they will have to earn the money with quality content. If the service provided is good, I don't care for CEO's salary or whatnot; if not I don't care for the CEO either way.
Except it would work a bit differently. Say I approve N number of sites (NY Times, WaPo, EE Times, etc.) They each get paid out of a monthly fund based on how much I visit each of them.
And how would Periscope users get paid, exactly?
reply