[AndrewStephens]

I get the sentiment but micropayments just don’t work - the main problems are not technical but social. Even in the gaming sector, nobody really charges less than about a dollar for items - that is the smallest unit of money where putting up with fraud, complaints, and chargebacks becomes worthwhile.

Add to this the huge race to the bottom (they are charging 3 cents for their article, read my summary for 2 cents) and you quickly begin to see why micropayments have never taken off.

Finally, I wrote a blog post along these lines with more detail[0]. For those who disagree, ask yourselves; would you pay me 2 cents before you click that link.

[0] https://sheep.horse/2024/11/on_micropayments.html

[beeflet]

The problems you describe are technical problems. How do you increase efficiency and avoid charge-backs due to fraud? Perhaps it is enabled by cryptocurrency (some systems like payment channels, RaiBlocks already exist for this). I would go into more detail about this but I think i've already debated you about this already.

The entire field of cryptography is about developing technical solutions to previously intractable social problems.

As I have described earlier, the race to the bottom is a feature, not a bug. It encourages other sites to mirror your content.

I would pay you 0.002 cents before clicking on that link. I already have to expend time and energy reading it, and I already pay for an internet connection to read it. If you put some sort of PoW firewall to deter AI scraping like many sites have been doing, I already have to expend money in the form of electricity to access the site.

[AndrewStephens]

> As I have described earlier, the race to the bottom is a feature, not a bug. It encourages other sites to mirror your content.

The problem is that bottom in this case is “free, with ads.” As soon as you post your well researched expensive to produce content, I will summarise it and offer 90% of the experience for free. That’s if Google doesn’t do it first with AI summaries.

There are plenty of crypto projects that tried to do micropayments. They failed mainly due to technical reasons but if they had worked they still would not have gained traction - nobody wants micropayments.

[Gigachad]

That just moves the fraud to the other direction by making it hard for legitimate chargebacks. Say someone steals your card info, then uses it to buy some news crypto.

[AuthAuth]

But how many people would really go to another site just to save 0.002? I can already go to the internet archive to read paywalled content. If needed and that option will still be available for the people that dont want to pay the 0.002.

Its a social problem and all it takes is one player breaking through. People have done this with far far worse things that people thought were unviable socially. Microbetting, microloans, gaming microtransactions, hardware subscriptions,

[xpe]

> For those who disagree, ask yourselves; would you pay me 2 cents before you click that link.

A straw man. That's not the only way to do it. Asking this instead is helpful: "what might make this work?" and explore that in depth and try some experiments.* It might be a collective action problem or a first-mover problem or a culture problem. Such classes of problems are hard, sometimes even insanely hard for anyone lacking massive influence, but not categorically unworkable or impossible.

> I get the sentiment but micropayments just don’t work

I don't buy this generalization. Maybe micropayments don't "work" yet according to some (unstated, unfortunately) ideas of scope or degree. But smallish payments have worked (to some degree, for some periods of time) for music downloads and political contributions, just to mention a few things. There is something to smaller-than-usual payments, this seems pretty clear. (Yes, there is a sort of lower quantum based on the slice a payment processor takes, so creative bundling is often needed.)

Maybe micropayments according to some particular definition are unlikely to work for online content under current constraints. Still, the world is a big place, and the future (hopefully) leaves a lot of room for experimentation.

Aside: maybe a bigger problem is the status-quo idea of "news". Most of the "news" I real feels almost like junk food.

* I prefer to ask "what would make something work?" or "what is blocking something from working?" rather than claiming "X can (or can't) work". This is not because I'm naive or an optimist. I'm neither. But I'm genuinely curious about how and why things work, and the way one frames the question has a big effect on where your brain leads you.

P.S. WRT exaggeration or overconfidence: just say no. Let's make nuance the norm. It can start here, one comment at a time.

P.P.S. I'll say this again, and it _should_ make people uncomfortable: I'm getting more value out of interacting with a high quality LLM with a solid prompt than a typical comment on HN, and this does not bode well. I still hope that people can step it up, but we're not there yet, for various reasons.