Start Paying for Internet Stuff(canolcer.com)
canolcer.com
Start Paying for Internet Stuff
https://canolcer.com/post/pay-for-internet-stuff/
32 comments
Who are your trustworthy git and vps providers?
I'm already paying for internet access. (begin of trollish flamebait comment that will get down-voted so hard nobody even knew it existed)
I pay for my internet access. I pay for the hardware and electricity to run my server, which runs my services, that I provide to the internet, free of charge, with no intention of it ever being anything but a cost sink, because I want to take part in this great International network of computers.
I'm literally okay with everything disappearing that does not align with my goals, I'm okay with youtube, netfix, google, twitter, facebook, and everything you can name, which exist to make a profit, going away. I'll still be able to browse other peoples websites, I'll still be able to connect to IRC servers that people run because they WANT to, heck.. I'll probably be able to go back to the days where IP addresses were publicly routable and could be static free of charge.
I pay for my internet access. I pay for the hardware and electricity to run my server, which runs my services, that I provide to the internet, free of charge, with no intention of it ever being anything but a cost sink, because I want to take part in this great International network of computers.
I'm literally okay with everything disappearing that does not align with my goals, I'm okay with youtube, netfix, google, twitter, facebook, and everything you can name, which exist to make a profit, going away. I'll still be able to browse other peoples websites, I'll still be able to connect to IRC servers that people run because they WANT to, heck.. I'll probably be able to go back to the days where IP addresses were publicly routable and could be static free of charge.
I generally agree, although paying for things still doesn't prevent companies from tracking us, selling our data or advertising to us. The additional income stream is hard to resist.
Another thing: if you won't pay for something, consider sending the creator a few words of praise. It might not pay the bills, but it feels damn good to be on the receiving end of kind words.
My business model allows me to give everything away for free without compromising on ethics. However, it's the positive feedback that really makes me want to continue on this path. The occasional "thank you" email never fails to make me smile.
I've since learned to praise everyone whose work I use or enjoy.
Another thing: if you won't pay for something, consider sending the creator a few words of praise. It might not pay the bills, but it feels damn good to be on the receiving end of kind words.
My business model allows me to give everything away for free without compromising on ethics. However, it's the positive feedback that really makes me want to continue on this path. The occasional "thank you" email never fails to make me smile.
I've since learned to praise everyone whose work I use or enjoy.
I generally agree, although paying for things still doesn't prevent companies from tracking us, selling our data or advertising to us.
If you don't give up your personal data, they won't have anything to sell.
Enabling users to subscribe without personal data is part of the idea behind Web3.
If you don't give up your personal data, they won't have anything to sell.
Enabling users to subscribe without personal data is part of the idea behind Web3.
User-supplied data isn't necessary for tracking and advertising, just more convenient. Obfuscatory methods can stymie this to a degree, but the average person neither understands nor wants to deal with those. Common tracking methods like tracking pixels and share buttons can be avoided at the client level, but the most popular clients have begun to use side channels to evade DNS-based blocking (with which one can protect many), while browser extensions are again not understood or used widely.
Networking is simply an inherently unprivate activity, there is no way to talk to an endpoint without that endpoint being able to know something about the other side. There is no way to prevent the middle-men who route the messages from knowing where it came from and where it's going, and if the same entity has control or visibility into a large enough portion of the network, to identify the endpoints.
Networking is simply an inherently unprivate activity, there is no way to talk to an endpoint without that endpoint being able to know something about the other side. There is no way to prevent the middle-men who route the messages from knowing where it came from and where it's going, and if the same entity has control or visibility into a large enough portion of the network, to identify the endpoints.
User-supplied data isn't necessary for tracking and advertising, just more convenient
And more valuable. Data brokers don't pay much for data that can't be tagged to an individual.
This is why professional privacy invaders love SMS 2FA ---it reliably identifies the individual with very little effort required. It's privacy invasion in the name of security.
And more valuable. Data brokers don't pay much for data that can't be tagged to an individual.
This is why professional privacy invaders love SMS 2FA ---it reliably identifies the individual with very little effort required. It's privacy invasion in the name of security.
> I generally agree, although paying for things still doesn't prevent companies from tracking us, selling our data or advertising to us. The additional income stream is hard to resist.
Sure, but it better aligns their economic interests with the users' interests. Not perfect, but better.
Sure, but it better aligns their economic interests with the users' interests. Not perfect, but better.
The recent Apple fiasco about introducing ads into iOS shows how true your statement is. It doesn't matter (apparently) that you paid £1500 for a brand new spanking phone, Apple will still want to milk you for money, even though they made about 50% pure profit on that single sale.
A very apt comparison would be blackmail - you'd think that paying the blackmailers their demand would sort things out, simple transaction, I pay you, you get rid of the compromising material (or w/e they're blackmailing you with). Except no, you paying them just stokes the fire, because they see they can make more money off of you, so they'll come around again, demanding payment. You lost out on paying the first demand, and literally nothing changed.
Same goes for paid services. You'd think that switching from a free service structure (where your data is being sold to support the upkeep of the service), to something paid, would mean that they don't sell your data anymore, right? Well, why on Earth would they NOT sell your data when they can make money off of it?
Most companies, especially VC-funded ones, won't care about long term. You can always rope in users with flashy new stuff, discounts, promotions, and users are not likely to leave, even if you push them to the edge of acceptability of abuse (here, I'm considering sale of your private data, especially if you're a paying customer, abuse), simply because it's more comfortable to just accept it rather than try to find another service that fits your needs, move all your stuff over, etc. - plus, there's no guarantee that this new service won't change business practices in the future and start selling your data (or abuse your customership in a different way).
This is why the whole pro-capitalist argument "well just pay for it and they won't sell your data" is bollocks. In a capitalist market, there's absolutely no incentive for a company to stop making as much profit off your back as they can. There's no incentive to "provide a fair service for a fair price", but there's LOTS of incentive to "provide bare minimum services at the highest price a majority of the customers are willing to pay, one way or the other". The only way to fix this is via regulations, but that stifles "innovation" (and by "innovation" I mean the padding of the pockets of the investors).
A very apt comparison would be blackmail - you'd think that paying the blackmailers their demand would sort things out, simple transaction, I pay you, you get rid of the compromising material (or w/e they're blackmailing you with). Except no, you paying them just stokes the fire, because they see they can make more money off of you, so they'll come around again, demanding payment. You lost out on paying the first demand, and literally nothing changed.
Same goes for paid services. You'd think that switching from a free service structure (where your data is being sold to support the upkeep of the service), to something paid, would mean that they don't sell your data anymore, right? Well, why on Earth would they NOT sell your data when they can make money off of it?
Most companies, especially VC-funded ones, won't care about long term. You can always rope in users with flashy new stuff, discounts, promotions, and users are not likely to leave, even if you push them to the edge of acceptability of abuse (here, I'm considering sale of your private data, especially if you're a paying customer, abuse), simply because it's more comfortable to just accept it rather than try to find another service that fits your needs, move all your stuff over, etc. - plus, there's no guarantee that this new service won't change business practices in the future and start selling your data (or abuse your customership in a different way).
This is why the whole pro-capitalist argument "well just pay for it and they won't sell your data" is bollocks. In a capitalist market, there's absolutely no incentive for a company to stop making as much profit off your back as they can. There's no incentive to "provide a fair service for a fair price", but there's LOTS of incentive to "provide bare minimum services at the highest price a majority of the customers are willing to pay, one way or the other". The only way to fix this is via regulations, but that stifles "innovation" (and by "innovation" I mean the padding of the pockets of the investors).
I will never pay for anything online. The internet is free. Stop trying to charge for things that have been historically free just because there's a bunch of new cell phone people here.
The spirit of the internet is the free dissemination of information with an emphasis on free.
The spirit of the internet is the free dissemination of information with an emphasis on free.
Before Gmail there were a multitude of ways to get free email accounts, their big thing was it wasn’t tied to your ISP or whatever (like a university) so you didn’t have to worry about losing access when you switched providers.
Also, back in the day, a lot of the websites were advertising for real life things like magazines.
Somewhere along the way, dot-com boom I’m guessing, it all shifted and there’s no way you’re getting that cat back in the bag.
Also, back in the day, a lot of the websites were advertising for real life things like magazines.
Somewhere along the way, dot-com boom I’m guessing, it all shifted and there’s no way you’re getting that cat back in the bag.
> This needs to start with companies not being afraid of charging their customers, and continue with customers not being put off to pay a couple of bucks a month for a product that brings them value.
While I get the sentiment of being more aggressive with pricing, this is a recipe for destruction. If customers are not put off, they find the offering valuable enough to them to keep buying it. Customers are put off in general when you overpower that agreement. A similar sentiment when a company will jack up their prices and you don't feel there's additional value being added, so you unsubscribe.
The argument about Google making email free doesn't quite add up. Email should be accessible to everyone, and I think we all agree on this. Especially those applying for jobs at the local library who may be on hard times.
I think the argument of great products being free is that they are "more accessible". If you want premium products, then buy them. Not every company needs to give into corporate greed when they have enough to continue growing. Too much of a premium and you have a walled garden. Choose wisely.
While I get the sentiment of being more aggressive with pricing, this is a recipe for destruction. If customers are not put off, they find the offering valuable enough to them to keep buying it. Customers are put off in general when you overpower that agreement. A similar sentiment when a company will jack up their prices and you don't feel there's additional value being added, so you unsubscribe.
The argument about Google making email free doesn't quite add up. Email should be accessible to everyone, and I think we all agree on this. Especially those applying for jobs at the local library who may be on hard times.
I think the argument of great products being free is that they are "more accessible". If you want premium products, then buy them. Not every company needs to give into corporate greed when they have enough to continue growing. Too much of a premium and you have a walled garden. Choose wisely.
I pay for several things on the Internet. Tutanota Email, Domain Renewals, Web Hosting to name a few. I also bought a few lifetime accounts which is refreshing and I'd like to see more services offering lifetime accounts.
The beauty of a lifetime license/account is you don't have to worry about having money 'ready' in your bank for a renewal charge. Sometimes my bank balance literally drops to zero, and I sometimes get caught out after a service attempts to charge me, and I temporarily get downgraded to their free tier and can't fully use the service. This happened with Google One once, and all my files were read-only and I couldn't upload important documents to Drive.
There are caveats to a lifetime account: namely: the upfront charge which is usually quite large, but a worthwhile investment in the long run. Another caveat is: it's not really lifetime, but more: The lifetime of the company/service/product so if the service outlives you, this is a win. If the service goes bust and you're still alive, this is a net loss, but I trust that some services are in it for the long-haul, usually after researching the company. There's no guarantees though. Buyer beware.
The beauty of a lifetime license/account is you don't have to worry about having money 'ready' in your bank for a renewal charge. Sometimes my bank balance literally drops to zero, and I sometimes get caught out after a service attempts to charge me, and I temporarily get downgraded to their free tier and can't fully use the service. This happened with Google One once, and all my files were read-only and I couldn't upload important documents to Drive.
There are caveats to a lifetime account: namely: the upfront charge which is usually quite large, but a worthwhile investment in the long run. Another caveat is: it's not really lifetime, but more: The lifetime of the company/service/product so if the service outlives you, this is a win. If the service goes bust and you're still alive, this is a net loss, but I trust that some services are in it for the long-haul, usually after researching the company. There's no guarantees though. Buyer beware.
I guess the question there is: how long after you die do you need your website to stay up?
> The main reason email is free is that Google fucked it all up by offering a good email service for free.
Yikes, no. Email definitely wasn't free in the past. If you didn't use Hotmail (which I believe had paid tiers), you paid through your ISP.
Gmail being free and giving you, at the time, a huge inbox was why it became as popular as it did. Even now, I'm paying for email via Google Workspace.
Truth is, people largely don't care about being tracked or being served ads
Yikes, no. Email definitely wasn't free in the past. If you didn't use Hotmail (which I believe had paid tiers), you paid through your ISP.
Gmail being free and giving you, at the time, a huge inbox was why it became as popular as it did. Even now, I'm paying for email via Google Workspace.
Truth is, people largely don't care about being tracked or being served ads
Truth is, people largely don't care about being tracked or being served ads
Don't care or don't understand?
If "pay by privacy" was opt in only, I suspect there would be a lot fewer participants. A lot of people just don't understand how their privacy is being abused --- out of sight, out of mind.
Don't care or don't understand?
If "pay by privacy" was opt in only, I suspect there would be a lot fewer participants. A lot of people just don't understand how their privacy is being abused --- out of sight, out of mind.
Don't care.
Facebook has an advertising profile for me? Big whoop, all they want to do with it is show me mores ads while I argue with my uncle online. I'm free to step away from the keyboard at any time. If I see an ad on Instagram and buy the product, yeah it's kind of annoying that the advertising worked but it's not like it's a scam. I get the product I bought, that I didn't know existed before the ad. If I didn't want the product I wouldn't buy it.
That's not to say Facebook hasn't done great crimes against humanity, but I don't really care that Facebook's ad profile knows I'm into computers. I'll happily tell you that in person that's one of my hobbies. I'll get annoyed if you're constantly trying to sell me stuff but Instagram ads are easy enough to scroll past.
Facebook has an advertising profile for me? Big whoop, all they want to do with it is show me mores ads while I argue with my uncle online. I'm free to step away from the keyboard at any time. If I see an ad on Instagram and buy the product, yeah it's kind of annoying that the advertising worked but it's not like it's a scam. I get the product I bought, that I didn't know existed before the ad. If I didn't want the product I wouldn't buy it.
That's not to say Facebook hasn't done great crimes against humanity, but I don't really care that Facebook's ad profile knows I'm into computers. I'll happily tell you that in person that's one of my hobbies. I'll get annoyed if you're constantly trying to sell me stuff but Instagram ads are easy enough to scroll past.
They're not actually selling the data to anyone.
You really have no way to know this do you?
A political consulting firm got full access to 87 million Facebook accounts. Are you sure no money changed hands in the process?
Every time you click on a Facebook ad, Facebook sells data on you to another company.
I wouldn't bet that they are just ignoring such an obvious opportunity --- even though they may describe it as sharing data with their "affiliates" --- aka, anyone willing to pay the right price.
You really have no way to know this do you?
A political consulting firm got full access to 87 million Facebook accounts. Are you sure no money changed hands in the process?
Every time you click on a Facebook ad, Facebook sells data on you to another company.
I wouldn't bet that they are just ignoring such an obvious opportunity --- even though they may describe it as sharing data with their "affiliates" --- aka, anyone willing to pay the right price.
you're right. I deleted that sentence as it detracts from my point
Why should I care if the economy were to move entirely off the web? Anything beyond sparsely scattered minor inconveniences?
"Start Paying for Internet Stuff" … says the man using a free Google Font on his website
The internet is so much larger than it used to be. Getting to a million users for a consumer app is possible, even in seemingly tiny niches. Then get 10% to pay $10 per year and that's a million dollars in annual revenue right there. That's close to sustainable if you run on a shoestring budget. Many consumer apps can be built and maintained by one or two people. It's totally doable to write high quality software with this business model.
Most consumer software is either grossly overpriced or made by a VC backed startup that is eagerly looking for an exit (leaving customers in the cold). That's a raw deal for the consumer.
Most consumer software is either grossly overpriced or made by a VC backed startup that is eagerly looking for an exit (leaving customers in the cold). That's a raw deal for the consumer.
Most subscription services are too expensive for the average user. They're great for B2B but as a user I rarely get enough value out of them to subscribe, with some exceptions.
$5.00/mo is the gold standard, but when you pay for multiple $5.00/mo services all that adds up. That's why I like services offering super cheap $12/year plans. If it means I get a bare-bones feature set as opposed to more expensive tiers, then I can live with that.
Twitter wants between $8/mo and $20 for a blue checkmark, and look at the reaction. OP isn't wrong, but the reality is that isn't happening for a wide variety of reasons, so advertising it is. I wish we lived in a different world where everyone had a surplus of money and could spend it on subscriptions. But we don't. So ads it is.
We do pay for most of the useful things online (Editor/GitHub/Aws/Apps/ etc). Ad-supported platforms, in my opinion, don't get to have a say. As someone pointed out I don't lose personally if frivolous apps start asking for money. And again this may be just me but ig, Twitter, FB etc don't add any value to work either way.
All too often the options are free or a charge way too high for what it's worth.
no thanks, I'll always pick free and ad-supported
Same but I grew up in the Kazaa era.
Never pay for software.
I don't think it's about one model being inherently better than the other. It's just different and you may want different things for different products.
I don't care if I'm seeing an ad when reading your recipe on your blogpost. Put ads in my operative system and I'll flip out and jump to your competitors.
Blanket statements that say advertising is bad in the name of privacy is plain ridiculous and this kind of thinking is responsible for regulations which made ads way less effective and drove the revenue from advertising down.
This in turn results in less freedom.
If EU regulations make ads unprofitable, I don't have the freedom to pick ad-supported software anymore over paid solution.
Not to mention the usability issues with all those damn popups.
I don't care if I'm seeing an ad when reading your recipe on your blogpost. Put ads in my operative system and I'll flip out and jump to your competitors.
Blanket statements that say advertising is bad in the name of privacy is plain ridiculous and this kind of thinking is responsible for regulations which made ads way less effective and drove the revenue from advertising down.
This in turn results in less freedom.
If EU regulations make ads unprofitable, I don't have the freedom to pick ad-supported software anymore over paid solution.
Not to mention the usability issues with all those damn popups.
People are working on it --- it's called "Web3".
It's still a work in progress but it's aimed squarely at the issues raised in the article.
In my opinion, the real key and the primary focus should be on a single, secure, widely accepted internet currency with very low transaction fees. This is obviously easier said than done. I don't think Bitcoin really fits the bill. Maybe Ethereum or something like Polkadot if they can somehow get enough service providers to coalesce around it.
Right now, the defacto currency of the internet is privacy. And it's main selling point is simplicity --- out of sight and out of mind for most people. If every service provider tries to roll their own payment system, it will quickly become too complicated and a security nightmare that Joe User will just avoid.
It's still a work in progress but it's aimed squarely at the issues raised in the article.
In my opinion, the real key and the primary focus should be on a single, secure, widely accepted internet currency with very low transaction fees. This is obviously easier said than done. I don't think Bitcoin really fits the bill. Maybe Ethereum or something like Polkadot if they can somehow get enough service providers to coalesce around it.
Right now, the defacto currency of the internet is privacy. And it's main selling point is simplicity --- out of sight and out of mind for most people. If every service provider tries to roll their own payment system, it will quickly become too complicated and a security nightmare that Joe User will just avoid.
I do pay for services for which trustworthy providers exist (mail, vps, git, small software, indie game studios).
I also put 50 dollars a month aside to donate to various open source projects I enjoy, because they are valuable to me, and the money actually goes to the devs.
I would gladly pay for many "mainstream" services as well, if I actually became a customer by doing so.
Unfortunately most large corporations will still track me, abuse my data, show me ads and spam (and distribute) my mail address and phone number even if I pay them. Hell, even TV manufacturers started doing this crap.
Many large scale IT companies don't even want to build a sustainable business. Why pay those? If one of them goes down a replacement will pop up, their value typically only comes from a large userbase, which doubles as the only reason for a lack of alternatives.
In many cases they even create negative value for me due to factors like peer pressure.
Take my money and then leave me alone. If you refuse to do that, it typically means I'm the one creating and providing value nowadays. And then it becomes highly debatable which one of us two deserves to get paid here.