I started to notice that more sites are turning into paywalls, and I don’t like that and would prefer ads over subscriptions.

I am curious, what does the general community think about that?

  • BitSound@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    False dichotomy, I’d rather see other funding models like Patreon/Kickstarter. Paying gets you early access/bonus stuff/whatever, and you don’t need intrusive technologies like ads/paywalls.

    • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Yeah, I want to pay you directly. I, admittedly, pirate things. When those things are good, I make an effort to go send money to the creator directly. Sometimes it’s hard, especially with things like books. I don’t want to buy it on Amazon. And unless someone is self-published, they’re getting peanuts. I’d much rather Venmo an author money direct. When Radiohead released In Rainbows way back when and put it out for “pay what you want,” I gave them five bucks I think.

      I understand it can’t always be like that, and that the people between a content creator and me do serve some purpose.

    • CameronDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      You may want to clarify, as patreon and kickstarter are often used as paywalls. Do you mean people can donate to a cause, and everyone gets the benefits?

      • BitSound@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        The latter, but I also don’t really mind paywalls in the form of “get early access” like SMBC comics or “get exclusive special content” like a lot of bands do.

        You can just straight paywall with those too, but you don’t have too. A band I like crowdfunded a music video and you can watch it free on youtube, but if you didn’t crowdfund it you missed out on perks that go all the way up to being in the music video