$2 a year.
I am from India, another poor country. For an average guy, $2 is valuable. I know people who live on less a $1/day. However thats 'average', remember it's a county of billion people.. In India, if you have internet, then you can surely afford to pay $2/year.
I too am am from India. There majority of indians are on facebook and whatsapp. they give a damn about discussing things with strangers. I have brought reddit gold for myself in the past, I have donated to several cough filesharing sites like cinema obscura and torrentday. $2 is about 120 INR... about 20 cups of cutting tea from a roadside vendor or about 12 cigarettes. If you go to a fancy coffee shop, this is the price of one coffee. So it is cheap... the only thing is that we are not used to paying for services. However, the value of sites like hubski, reddit etc is about the content that gets created. If, as others are suggesting, the site allows only paid users then the content that could come from some random user would be lost. It will become a small and boring club and ideas will become stale.
Look. I don't want to fight. The fact of the matter is Hubski is a website which means you need a computer and internet access to get to it. That computer might be granted, rented, borrowed, whatever but regardless, this isn't the Sally Struthers set we're talking about here. As with most of the Western Web, the majority of the participants have enough disposable income that prioritizing a nominal fee isn't an issue. A shower at a truck stop costs $2, FFS. Besides which, whatever the price is someone has to pay it. If it costs $2/user/year and most users can't afford $2/user/year, either one in five users better be paying $10/user/year or everyone gets to suck down two thousand ads per year each.. That's about 5 ads per user per day. Hardly the end of the world. But then, we're talking about a nothing fee. Spin it out further: Let's say you make $100k a year. .4% of your annual income is $33 a month. That's three times what Pando charges - that makes it expensive, but not crazytown expensive. All this "vehemence" and disdainful language combined with the plea to poverty is just... distasteful. And rude. I grew up the son of two grad students in Breaking Bad country. I can throw down with the Rit dye and government cheese with the best of them but I haven't because it's beside the fucking point. The money has to come from somewhere. Someone has to pay it. They likely need some sort of incentive. This was supposed to be a discussion about possible methods to test, not an excuse for you to paint me up as Scrooge McDuck.
I'm sorry. I picked an arbitrary synonym of "strongly." It wasn't meant to be offensive to you or anyone. I didn't say anything about you. I was expressing my opinion on an idea, not about any person or people. I mentioned my past because it was exactly my point: for the greater part of my life, I have been in a position where such a fee would have been too much. My feelings, and argument, is that what seems like a nominal fee is untenable to many people. You're telling me my position itself is 'rude' and 'distasteful.' I don't know what to say to that. I'm sorry you find that opinion rude, but it isn't meant to be, and it isn't meant to offend or insult. I do feel it's a valid position, and I don't think it's hateful to the wealthy to defend those who aren't (among whom, my past self). Honestly, it feels like you're telling me I can't have strong feelings on an idea without offending you personally. You've repeatedly taken things I said, and interpreted them as things I didn't say, and had no intention of implying. I do apologise, it wasn't my intention to insult or attack you or anyone. From your words, I'm honestly not sure how I can hold or express my opinion without insulting you; and I don't know what to say to that besides, 'I'm sorry.'All this "vehemence" and disdainful language
for you to paint me up as Scrooge McDuck.
it's beside the fucking point.
combined with the plea to poverty is just... distasteful. And rude.
I appreciate the apology. I take it with the full meaning intended. So when I point out where things went off track, please take as why I was offended, not why I am offended because this is the sort of thing that behooves us all to be on top of. I went out of my way to distance myself and my feelings from any of these proposals. For example, by advocating ads as a method of monetization I do not personally want ads. There's no "me" in any of this. Your reaction, on the other hand, was not only deeply negative but also deeply personal. You advocated against fees because you "grew up poor." You doubled down by aligning your former poverty with the experience of the majority of the country. Rhetorically, you said "I align with X and my opponent does not." In other words, your phrasing and your language used the moral authority (not the logical authority) of poverty and put me in opposition to it. Logically, you took a number I had thrown out as an example and then misrepresented it. You then applied that number to an audience that has no verifiable or anecdotal presence in the theater of discussion. I presented a number from Reddit for the sake of argument. You took that number, used it as a concrete value, multiplied it by 12 and applied it to an extreme outlier. You made a reductio ad absurdum case against a reasonable hypothetical, which assigned me the position of unreasonability. Finally, you took an a statement in which I was attempting to explore all options through research and dismissed them out of hand with "I don't have evidence of that, but it's a pretty strong hunch." In effect, you were arguing that all of my statements were invalid because your truthiness counted for more. So. I put out some ideas as ideas. Your phrasing 1) Required me to defend a position I hadn't taken 2) Forced me to justify numbers I hadn't used 3) Disputed facts with emotions. Now that we're talking reasonably, your argument boils down to "My feelings, and argument, is that what seems like a nominal fee is untenable to many people." Fine. Great. My feeling is that I said "nominal." I didn't say what "nominal" was, and I also said that the point of the exercise was to determine the alignment between "what Hubski costs" and "what people are willing to pay for it." I didn't say "$2/year is a nominal fee" I argued for the exploration of what a nominal fee is. And here's the important take-away: I'm not telling you your position is rude and distasteful. Your position is that "nominal" may not actually be "nominal." No argument with that, not even a point I was making. I'm telling you that your presentation is rude and distasteful. It struck me as such. I'm not telling you you can't have strong feelings on an idea. I'm telling you that when your strong feelings are used to form a personal attack, however inadvertent, the recipient of that attack will feel attacked. And it was clear I felt attacked. And when I answered your attacks with facts, you doubled down ("...which would still be a rather hefty price if it's .4% of your annual income"). it wasn't until I de-escalated things that we got back to a semi-neutral ground. I rarely offend people by accident anymore. It still happens. When it does, there's a good chance that when I talk about it with the offended party, I discover they're accidentally offended a lot of the time. I'm occasionally offended by people who didn't intend to offend me. They usually offer up some sort of video explaining how people like to take offense at things, which they've found because they have this sort of discussion a lot. The bottom line is none of us benefit from accidentally pissing each other off and it's worth the effort to at least keep the offense in the deliberate category. My first response was a clear-cut indicator that I'd been offended. I hoped it would lead to a discussion like this. How will you avoid offending me? How will I avoid offending you? By trying hard not to and by working to resolve it when it happens. That's life.