←back to thread

157 points mooreds | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
donatj ◴[] No.44373354[source]
I was pondering this earlier today while manually prepending archive.is to a pay walled link on my Android phone for the umpteenth time today.

The micro-transaction proposals everyone cried about in the early 2000's would have been so much better than this.

The odds of me paying for a subscription for some tiny local newspaper on the other side of the country are literally nil, but I'd be far more willing toss you a penny or two to read the content of a single article.

replies(22): >>44373377 #>>44373411 #>>44373449 #>>44373489 #>>44373594 #>>44373636 #>>44374265 #>>44374282 #>>44374689 #>>44374692 #>>44374902 #>>44375133 #>>44375268 #>>44375289 #>>44375313 #>>44375470 #>>44375539 #>>44375540 #>>44375709 #>>44375759 #>>44376265 #>>44376876 #
graemep ◴[] No.44374692[source]
I think people might pay for micro-transactions, but a lot of news has no real value.

The news mostly reports facts that are available from other sources. Pre-internet a lot of their content was rewrites of stuff pulled off news wires. The front few pages of a newspaper and opinion bits were genuinely their own content - but a lot of the former was available from the (many) sources that sent people to cover major events.

People paid because they had limited choices. If you wanted to read the news it had to be a newspaper. Otherwise you could watch a limited number of TV channels or listen to the radio.

Reporting was often inaccurate, and thanks to changes of ethos and cost pressures is probably worse (I am judging that bit from a UK perspective though)

On top of that I doubt the value of keeping up with the news at all. Look at a news source you read regularly from an year ago and see how much of it you remember. Something more in-depth (a book, a blog post, a good analytical video) gives you a much better understanding of the world and those are also far more available.

There are a very few places that have unique content that is worth reading, but these are not the typical news websites that replaced newspapers.

replies(6): >>44375717 #>>44375808 #>>44375819 #>>44377236 #>>44382814 #>>44389754 #
1. carlosjobim ◴[] No.44375808[source]
> but a lot of news has no real value.

> stuff pulled off news wires.

"Stuff" – also known as news.

Keeping up with the news can mean the difference between life and death for you and your family. I remember when Mr Joe Biden was in the news warning against a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Those who listened could get themselves and their family to safety before the travel ban and the draft. Many of those who didn't are in a mass grave right now.

But yes, we need to try to choose our news consumption to those things which actually matter in our own lives. A train wreck or earthquake on the other side of the world is probably not in that category. Neither is internal foreign politics, if you're for example a European who knows everything about US primaries but doesn't know the name of the EU president...

> the typical news websites that replaced newspapers.

The typical news websites are the digital offering of traditional newspapers, aren't they?

Thank you for reading my comment on Hacker News ;)

replies(1): >>44376026 #
2. graemep ◴[] No.44376026[source]
I agree with keeping up with things that might affect you, but that is a tiny sliver of the news.

> a European who knows everything about US primaries but doesn't know the name of the EU president...

Very common. A lot of political argument in the UK seems to take place from an American perspective - people talk as though our problems and possible solutions are exactly the same as in the US.