More like the quality ones get their content ripped and viewed for free with tools like archive.is or people just posting the full text in comments on this forum even.
Subs only aren’t viable for publications with full staff imo
> the quality ones get their content ripped and viewed for free with tools like archive.is
This is increasingly blocked by investigative outlets, particularly niche ones. It eventually filters through to folks who won’t or can’t pay. And for most people, that’s fine—they don’t need detailed and timely news.
I want to pay good sites for their content, but I don't think it's economical to expect a subscription from every semi-regular reader.
I'd like for the internet to settle on some sort of micro-transaction system where your browsing history pays out a fraction of a penny each time you browse to a site, so as long as you maintain a balance in your wallet, you can browse the web ad-free across all the sites that support the transaction system.
Doesn’t make sense commercially or socially. If you’re dabbling in specialist content, you’re fine waiting for it to filter out through ad-funded sources. The information density will be lower. And timing, too. But the whole point of the subscription is you have a stable base of financing and a committed community of knowledgeable people (likely in positions of power).
And practically speaking, the archive.is workarounds sort of are the solution for dabblers. It just taxes your time instead of wallet, which seems fair.
Same as they do now. The quality ones charge for their content. The low-quality ones survive on serving ads to the masses.