SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Hey Soylentils,
I was speaking with a client of mine who is looking to monetize his website. To give some clarity of where I'm coming from; right now the client gives trading suggestions about what he thinks will make big moves during the week. He has a small but dedicated following, I have no idea how accurate he is, but people are paying money for the advice.
The advice section of his site is paywalled and a monthly subscription is required to access it. Unfortunately people have begun to share usernames & passwords, going so far as to even put credentials that were paid for with a stolen credit card on bugmenot.
He approached me about a possible solution and I have what I think is a good solution, but I wanted to ask how you felt about it. In a nutshell, the currently "secure" areas of the site would be stripped of any authentication. In it's place the server would return a 402 response code.
If you're unaware, 402 literally means "payment required" and has for decades, but as yet no browsers have implemented it.
I think DOGE or Bitcoin might be perfect here, just need to create a plugin for the browser that can catch the 402 and display a notice that payment is required, showing a QR code the user can scan and pay, before proceeding.
This got me thinking that it might also be an alternative to both traditional paywalling and ads. With adblocking turning into an arms race, it might be the correct way to monetize valuable content.
So here's the question I'm getting at. If a site you were already subscribing to, decided to implement something like this, would you switch over or just cancel your subscription? Keep in mind that at least at first, it would mean installing a plugin but the plugin would be opensource, with hopes it just becomes a standard.
Thanks for the feedback!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tramii on Thursday March 24 2016, @07:39PM
For clients who don't want to bind to social media, he's going to offer the option to use bitcoin / litecoin etc. However they won't have a password to share, instead it will be a browser cookie. Delete the cookie and lose access, basically you're paying for the cookie :)
This isn't without precedent it's the same system used here https://bitphone.net/ [bitphone.net] which we're just shamelessly copying.
I can't decide if that plan is evil, stupid, or both.
(Score: 2) by devlux on Thursday March 24 2016, @08:34PM
I'm curious as to why you think that way. Can you please elaborate?
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday March 25 2016, @06:46AM
Generally people regard cookies as transient things that can be cleaned from time to time. Also, generally cookies are not selectively cleaned. It's an all or nothing thing. Also, a lot of people don't store cookies long term. Hope you have some kind of recovery mechanism planned for those who browse in some sort of privacy mode.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by devlux on Friday March 25 2016, @05:30PM
Good point, but we're talking pennies here. I've probably lost a cumulative $10 since bitphone launched and never even thought twice about it. I drop a couple dollars make some calls and if it remembers I had some change then great! otherwise no big loss.
Final decision will be the owner and his community though, not mine.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Friday March 25 2016, @09:26PM
So it's ok to essentially steal from your customers as long as you only steal a little bit, huh?
Cookies should *never* be used for something like this. Cookies can easily be wiped out. You are not only locking your customers into one device, but also to a specific browser. If I paid for this service using Firefox and then wanted to quickly switch over to Chrome, I have to pay again, correct? That's insane. I don't care how much money I was offered, I would never never never implement such a scheme. The (almost guaranteed) backlash would never be worth it.
(Score: 2) by devlux on Friday March 25 2016, @11:29PM
If you were talking about a customer who cared to register themselves I'd have to agree with you. In this case the customer is choosing not to register an identity on the site, but is still requesting access to a paid section. This is the computer equivalent of selling tickets to a movie to someone.
If that person tosses the ticket in the trash prior to going in, then there isn't much you can do for them except make it clear up front that if they toss that ticket they won't get in because there is no connection between payment and identity anymore.
Very likely you're assuming it would be a subscription for a long period of time, but my understanding is it's more like a day pass. Like I said, look at how bitphone does it, because that's what the client wants implemented. You register an account and your funds stay with the account, regardless of payment method. However to protect himself against credit card fraud, the client will be requiring customers to attach a social media account and even rewards them for doing so. If they don't care to do so, then they can pay with bitcoin.
To be clear in case you're confused. Bitcoin is an option whether or not they have an account, but if they have an account the funds stay with the account, otherwise it's a cookie. Not really sure how else you would implement something like that.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Friday March 25 2016, @11:51PM
This is the computer equivalent of selling tickets to a movie to someone.
I would say a more accurate analogy would be using a hand stamp with water-soluble ink that easily rubs off. What? You washed your hands? Too bad. You gotta pay again.
Like I said, look at how bitphone does it...
I could justify a lot of stupidity/evil if I am allowed to copy what other people do.
Bitcoin is an option whether or not they have an account, but if they have an account the funds stay with the account, otherwise it's a cookie.
That sounds great, except you can't just create an account. The only way to create an account is to use your social media account. Yes, it's reasonable to insist that I create an account to get access to something. No, it is not reasonable to try to force me to sign up with a site that is trying to steal my personal data. It is also not right to try to try to force me to "share" my personal data with you.