Slashdot Mirror
Richard Stallman: Online Publishers Should Let Readers Pay Anonymously (theguardian.com)
Long-time Slashdot reader mspohr writes:
The Guardian has an opinion piece by Richard Stallman which argues that we should be able to pay for news anonymously. From the article: "Online newspapers and magazines have come to depend, for their income, on a system of advertising and surveillance, which is both annoying and unjust... What they ought to do instead is give us a truly anonymous way to pay."
He also (probably not coincidentally) has developed a method to do just that. "For the GNU operating system, which was created by the free software movement and is typically used with the kernel Linux, we are developing a suitable payment system called GNU Taler that will allow publishers to accept anonymous payments from readers for individual articles."
Publishers "can profit from defending privacy rather than from exposing their readers," argues Stallman, ending his article with a simple plea. "Publishers, please let me pay you -- anonymously!"
He also (probably not coincidentally) has developed a method to do just that. "For the GNU operating system, which was created by the free software movement and is typically used with the kernel Linux, we are developing a suitable payment system called GNU Taler that will allow publishers to accept anonymous payments from readers for individual articles."
Publishers "can profit from defending privacy rather than from exposing their readers," argues Stallman, ending his article with a simple plea. "Publishers, please let me pay you -- anonymously!"
Because content creators think too highly of themselves. They want to sell and resell their work infinitely many times. And even though it doesn't work, whey think it does and they have the publishers on their side (and they think the same).
Working for a few days or a year to produce an article, a song, a video or whatever, does not automatically guarantee that you should get paid for it. It's the same for someone who works for a few days or a year to produce a chair. If you can get paid for it, great! But don't fucking expect that you should get paid for your work just because you put down the hours. And definitely don't expect to be paid for each copy when the process of copying is free!
Well publishers could quite easily accept bitcoin payments...
The problem is that the content isn't the product, the users have become the product and the customers are the marketing agencies that pay for the information.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
A mass reversion to actual newspapers? I like it.
As long as they go back to 50 cents like they were a decade ago instead of like fucking triple that now.
You mean like Flattr? It wouldn't work for modern journalism because modern journalism relies mostly on outrage. They try to outrage readers in order to get reader to look at articles and to post in the comments. Readers then come back repeatedly to view the updated comments, and each time get served advertisements. Integrity has disappeared from modern journalism. Journalists care nothing about the truth and are either focused entirely on increasing revenue and pushing their agenda.
You could argue that switching to tip based funding would improve journalism, but I suspect that the only people who would tip are people who agree with the agenda that is being pushed. This would lead to journalists becoming even more focused on supporting the causes of outspoken minorities in order to get more funding from those groups.
I don't think there's any hope for modern journalism. Slashdot works because most of the content comes from users posting rather than from journalists. Reddit used to work for the same reason, until they started censoring anything that didn't agree with their agenda.
Because he doesn't want to gut their income, unless you mean the income they get from spying and tracking. He wants to pay them money so that they can afford to produce quality content. Only condition is: every purchase and personal interest which they reflect isn't logged somewhere.
The only feasible way to achieve this which I can think of is some type of cryptocurrency.
If the media focused on solutions then it would also have to spend time identifying the cause of the problems better.
You know, sociopath CEOs, corrupt politicians, law enforcement behaving illegally, companies that violate labor laws, etc. People who advertise with them or control their access to exclusives in other words.
Before Reagan was elected, media outlets kept their news and marketing organizations separate. The laws of the time didnt specifically require this but it was the easiest way to comply with them. Corporations were sharply limited in the number of local outlets, newspapers, etc. they could own. This encouraged real, investigative reporting without regard for advertisers' and government officials' wishes. Reagan and the Republicans changed that and they damned well knew what they were doing, even as the idiots who voted against their own interests and put them in office did not.
Simple example from today: illegal immigration. This was not a problem in the 60s and 70s. Why? Strong unions kept people ineligible to work here from getting jobs. But the conservatives gutted unions with laws, lack of enforcement, and a PR campaign that lots of people here still fall for. Absent that, employers went with what was cheap with a wink and a nod from their bought and paid for enforcement officials.
To fix this now, you don't need a wall. You don't need mass deportations. You don't need amnesty or a 'path to citizenship'. You don't even need unions if that's not your thing. What you need is to throw CEOs of companies that employ illegals in jail. That will fix this problem immediately at much less cost. Which candidiate has proposed that as a solution? Right...nobody.
That's just one thing. There are so many things wrong which have the same basic solution (jail CEOs of companies that cause the problems) and a trail of corruption just waiting to be reported on and exposed, and we've got nothing.