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!
Adverts are really inefficient, and paywalls just send readers to other sites. What IMO would work better, and fit US culture, is a tip jar that can be easily added to articles, blogs, etc. When you enjoyed someone's work, you leave them a tip. Why is this not a thing already?
My blog
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.
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.
That is a kernel, not an OS. He is correct: much of what you call "Linux" is GNU. I'm still not calling it GNU/Linux though.
Someone else that doesn't understand the GPL :(
The GPL is about giving freedom to the USER, not the dev. And ensuring that the USER keeps that freedom.
Not that I agree with everything he says, but the GPL is good.
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.
Even better, let's have a protocol to do this automatically, perhaps built into Firefox or into Adblock.
At the moment, about 90% of web bandwidth is advertising. So it imposes a heavy cost of bandwidth/time/annoyance on the reader, yet it gives back a fraction of a cent to the author of the content. I'd much rather pay directly for the content I want, and not get the garbage. It would also improve content quality because nobody would worry about their articles being unpopular with advertisers. And it would be a great way for Firefox to lead over Chrome.
Look, I know Stallman is a public figure who's history means some folks are already rolling their eyes before he gets a word out. But none of the comments here actually address the merit of this thing yet, or the fact that this problem exists to start with.
Regarding the post summary, let's evaluate the current situation. We have a world where media is beholden to advertisers and the public is the product. Injected with "flavor additive content" as tastes dictate, monitored, recorded and demographically categorized for convenient sale to 3rd party interests. I may sound overly dramatic but I don't think I'm exaggerating. The true customers for all ad based media are advertisers. Data aggregators then sell it all onward to corporate and nation state interests. I doubt any right thinking person would say this is a good state of affairs unless they've got vested interests in this particular food chain.
So a solution is necessary. Reading the FAQ blurbs about GNU Taller from the link given though, and as a self proclaimed monetary history and economics buff, I'm not convinced this is the best way forward.
I kind of like how they describe the difference between "sharing" which is anonymous and free as in speech and "transactions" where the income side is somehow not anonymous for businesses. This could be conducive for abolishing income taxation (an immoral action easily evaded by rich people) and moving to a pure consumption tax. Such as:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
Which I would support wholeheartedly. I don't see anything though which would stop GNU Taller from only perpetuating the income tax, which I am morally opposed to.
Lastly I see no mention of micro-payments. We need an anonymous way to issue fractional payments to content creators which doesn't require private details to set up, and which doesn't have service fees that would make arrangements like "a few cents per article" impractical. Bitcoin's upcoming micro-payment channel and side chain ideas are promising, but GNU Taller doesn't seem to touch on this. On this front GNU Taller looks like just more of the same whereby anonymity isn't a real thing: make an account at their site, accept cookies, sign in and be tracked as you use up your deposit.
To get back to the summary of this post, consider this question: Would you give a street musician money if they wanted your name, address and credit card details? No, but you'd toss a little cash in his hat gladly. Some of the improvements planned for bitcoin do have this future in mind, so I'll keep my bets on that square for the moment.
I'd be more willing to give money anonymously to a charity because it drives me crazy that I make a donation the junk mail from any organization that is vaguely similar (but which is usually of no interest to me) starts rolling in.
The GPL is about giving freedom to the USER, not the dev. And ensuring that the USER keeps that freedom.
As a developer, I'll go with BSD-style licenses, thanks. I look after my own interests, because for sure no one else does.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.