←back to thread

54 points elektor | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.257s | source
Show context
dpacmittal ◴[] No.44389729[source]
Is it only me who feels its incredibly unfair for publishers, that not only did big tech trained their LLMs on free content authored by these publishers, but it's also killing their future revenue. It's like stealing from someone and then making sure they never make money again.
replies(15): >>44389781 #>>44389783 #>>44389791 #>>44389872 #>>44389919 #>>44389923 #>>44389956 #>>44389993 #>>44390022 #>>44390123 #>>44390136 #>>44390180 #>>44393273 #>>44393840 #>>44395240 #
azemetre ◴[] No.44389993[source]
Yes it's unfair. It's digital colonialism. What's sad is that other companies keep falling for the false narrative that big tech monopolies act as partners and not the blood sucking leeches they've become to represent.
replies(3): >>44390090 #>>44390102 #>>44392266 #
1. drdem ◴[] No.44392266[source]
It’s colonial, but mostly Offerwall just seems like a big company decision. It has a name somehow worse than “paywall”, and I don’t plan to pay anyone for their content, especially if some of it is going to a big company. The reasons are that I don’t need to, it’s not important enough, and I don’t want to think about it.

A better idea would be a non-profit federated subscription similar to music services. You just use it, you don’t have to think about how much you pay for each page you read, and the federation keeps your identity private. You could even upvote or downvote a page if you wanted more of your percentage to go to someone or none of it. You could decide how much you could afford to pay so it could be affordable and free to the poor. You could vote even if you didn’t contribute and your vote would be considered equal.

But, the odds of that becoming a thing are incredibly low. It would require some sort of identity, which could be misused. And the web is meant to be like the outdoors- you go outside and move around in it mostly freely. It’s not a zoo where you pay admission.