Reddit CEO Says Paywalls are Coming Soon

[formulanone]

I run a couple smallish car-related subreddits and don't see the benefit of this for either the user or the sub.

I can't see the paid model working well; the incentive would be canvassing more umpteen-times-seen junk for "karma" and then more misinformation gets floated to the top, instead of drowned out, as the model generally works (except for hive-mind issues).

That already happens now with repost bots and other spambots.

I see it a lot in things like r/pics an other very-popular subreddits. I just wonder how much it would play out in the smaller, more specialized ones.

[vdeane]

Your first paragraph makes no sense from a business perspective. No one is going to sign up for a subscribtion Reddit-type site when it launches because it has no value. The users, and the interaction between them, is what provides the value. Setting up the site....attracting users and the value they bring...and then figuring out how exactly to monetize it IS the business plan.

Any taking away of still-used functionality (or putting free functionality behind a paywall) or making the user experience worse is morally repugnant and, quite frankly, should not be legal at all.  I could see offering the service for free for a year or two and then charging, but such must be disclosed in advance so that people are not surprised (such would also prevent the world from changing in ways that would cause monetization to cause such problems for citizens).

[Max Rockatansky]

I mean is Reddit not a publicly traded company?  The investors have the right to run it however they like, even it makes the product appreciably worse.

[kalvado]

I mean is Reddit not a publicly traded company?  The investors have the right to run it however they like, even it makes the product appreciably worse.

They have a great, but fragile asset. Question is how to make it to make it work without destroying the value. Paid premium features are one thing, dumping entire thing into AI training is another...

[Max Rockatansky]

I mean is Reddit not a publicly traded company?  The investors have the right to run it however they like, even it makes the product appreciably worse.

They have a great, but fragile asset. Question is how to make it to make it work without destroying the value. Paid premium features are one thing, dumping entire thing into AI training is another...

Isn't it more a case that Reddit is one of the last major forum-like websites left?  My thought is that the format isn't  mlong for this world anyways and won't need much of a push to completely tank.

[SEWIGuy]

Your first paragraph makes no sense from a business perspective. No one is going to sign up for a subscribtion Reddit-type site when it launches because it has no value. The users, and the interaction between them, is what provides the value. Setting up the site....attracting users and the value they bring...and then figuring out how exactly to monetize it IS the business plan.

Any taking away of still-used functionality (or putting free functionality behind a paywall) or making the user experience worse is morally repugnant and, quite frankly, should not be legal at all.  I could see offering the service for free for a year or two and then charging, but such must be disclosed in advance so that people are not surprised (such would also prevent the world from changing in ways that would cause monetization to cause such problems for citizens).

Charging for something that used to be free should be illegal...because people are surprised?

I mean come on. Why do people want to use laws to outlaw things they don't like versus things that are actually detrimental to society?

No one is harmed in any material way if Reddit starts charging for their site. No one is defrauded or anything.

[kalvado]

I mean is Reddit not a publicly traded company?  The investors have the right to run it however they like, even it makes the product appreciably worse.

They have a great, but fragile asset. Question is how to make it to make it work without destroying the value. Paid premium features are one thing, dumping entire thing into AI training is another...

Isn't it more a case that Reddit is one of the last major forum-like websites left?  My thought is that the format isn't  mlong for this world anyways and won't need much of a push to completely tank.

Maybe, given stack exchange is also there
But I believe there enough people who do need text and feedback system for things to exist at least another decade or two.

[thspfc]

Your first paragraph makes no sense from a business perspective. No one is going to sign up for a subscribtion Reddit-type site when it launches because it has no value. The users, and the interaction between them, is what provides the value. Setting up the site....attracting users and the value they bring...and then figuring out how exactly to monetize it IS the business plan.

Any taking away of still-used functionality (or putting free functionality behind a paywall) or making the user experience worse is morally repugnant and, quite frankly, should not be legal at all.  I could see offering the service for free for a year or two and then charging, but such must be disclosed in advance so that people are not surprised (such would also prevent the world from changing in ways that would cause monetization to cause such problems for citizens).

So if a company was charging $5/month for a service from the beginning then jacked the rate to $100/month, should that be illegal as well? That's an increase of $95 per month, as opposed to reddit theoretically charging a few dollars a month tops. If reddit charges $2/month, that's an increase of $2.

Should this logic extend to landlords? If an area becomes more desirable or the landlord does thorough renovations, should they not be able to raise rent for subsequent signings? How does this cooperate with inflation in general?

Not to mention, there's every chance that a service gets better when the price increases, negating the already extremely subjective "user experience" point. 5 years ago Geoguessr started charging like $2/month. Since then the site has shot up in quality and popularity.

This is new urbanist behavior right here. Making wild and unspecific demands that will never be acted upon instead of making reasonable and specific demands that could be acted upon. So instead of some positive change, the result is nothing.

[SectorZ]

Your first paragraph makes no sense from a business perspective. No one is going to sign up for a subscribtion Reddit-type site when it launches because it has no value. The users, and the interaction between them, is what provides the value. Setting up the site....attracting users and the value they bring...and then figuring out how exactly to monetize it IS the business plan.

Any taking away of still-used functionality (or putting free functionality behind a paywall) or making the user experience worse is morally repugnant and, quite frankly, should not be legal at all.  I could see offering the service for free for a year or two and then charging, but such must be disclosed in advance so that people are not surprised (such would also prevent the world from changing in ways that would cause monetization to cause such problems for citizens).

It should be illegal for Reddit to charge its users? What the hell is going wrong with this forum?

[Molandfreak]

My thoughts on the matter have not changed. I do not respect companies who monetize content that was previously free.

If they can find a way to put newer content behind the paywall while keeping the content from before the cut-off date accessible, I would have less of an issue with it. If they just make every archived post (which can be viewed but not commented on) free to view, that would be even more ideal.

[SEWIGuy]

Your first paragraph makes no sense from a business perspective. No one is going to sign up for a subscribtion Reddit-type site when it launches because it has no value. The users, and the interaction between them, is what provides the value. Setting up the site....attracting users and the value they bring...and then figuring out how exactly to monetize it IS the business plan.

Any taking away of still-used functionality (or putting free functionality behind a paywall) or making the user experience worse is morally repugnant and, quite frankly, should not be legal at all.  I could see offering the service for free for a year or two and then charging, but such must be disclosed in advance so that people are not surprised (such would also prevent the world from changing in ways that would cause monetization to cause such problems for citizens).

It should be illegal for Reddit to charge its users? What the hell is going wrong with this forum?

Not to mention "morally repugnant." Which is strange, because I don't even think its unethical. Businesses do this all of the time.

For example, a local ice cream shop has a grand opening where it offers free samples. Is it then "morally repugnant" to charge for the ice cream later?

[wxfree]

I'm not really opposed to paying for services, with two conditions.  First I don't want my payment information to be held by everyone everywhere.  I'd be more interested in an intermediary, such as a broker or the payment processing companies (Visa, etc.) handling subscriptions.  Rather than everyone you give your card number to being an intermediary between you and your own money through that card, the company that processes the card (or some other single and trusted operation) could be an intermediary between you and your subscription providers.  I would sign up for a subscription and give Reddit, or whoever, an account number to access the account in which I set up payments for it.  Reddit never has my card number or access to any funds other than what's in that account. The payment processor already collects a fee on each payment, and that fee would presumably increase for the additional service, but it would provide a new service where you can see all of your subscriptions and give you a centralized way to cancel them.  It would also make all cancellations online.  The processor would inform the company of the cancellation.  You wouldn't have to call anyone to cancel, like it's still 1990. (I know of one service for which automatic payment cancellation requires informing, in writing, both the service and your bank of your wish to cancel.  It doesn't specify that it must be a notarized sworn statement delivered by certified mail, but I wouldn't be surprised.)  The company would be informed of the cancellation, and if they don't accept that, there are no funds available.

Also, I don't like the assumption that a subscription service must cost at least $15 per month.  I'd be much more likely to sign up for something that costs a dollar or two each month, or maybe $15 for a year, and knowing that some possibly scummy service (or whoever hacks them) doesn't have full access to my bank account, but only has access to a payment account that I choose to fund or not. If you have millions of users, a small amount each month from each of them would substantially supplement your ad revenue.  You can charge more for ad-free service for those who don't know how to block ads, and charge more for heavy users.  Wanting everyone to pay for heavy use access is a good way to crush your viewer numbers and ad revenue, gaining a little while losing a lot.

[hotdogPi]

Also, I don't like the assumption that a subscription service must cost at least $15 per month.

Discord Nitro is $10 per month. Flickr Pro is $50 per year. Apple Music is $11 per month. There are many subscriptions that cost less than $15 per month.

[Max Rockatansky]

I recall a lot of people thought Flickr going to a paid model for unlimited storage would tank the site.  That page has been the only one of my storage mediums that hasn't tanked since 2017.

[SEWIGuy]

I'm not really opposed to paying for services, with two conditions.  First I don't want my payment information to be held by everyone everywhere.  I'd be more interested in an intermediary, such as a broker or the payment processing companies (Visa, etc.) handling subscriptions.  Rather than everyone you give your card number to being an intermediary between you and your own money through that card, the company that processes the card (or some other single and trusted operation) could be an intermediary between you and your subscription providers.  I would sign up for a subscription and give Reddit, or whoever, an account number to access the account in which I set up payments for it.  Reddit never has my card number or access to any funds other than what's in that account. The payment processor already collects a fee on each payment, and that fee would presumably increase for the additional service, but it would provide a new service where you can see all of your subscriptions and give you a centralized way to cancel them.  It would also make all cancellations online.  The processor would inform the company of the cancellation.  You wouldn't have to call anyone to cancel, like it's still 1990. (I know of one service for which automatic payment cancellation requires informing, in writing, both the service and your bank of your wish to cancel.  It doesn't specify that it must be a notarized sworn statement delivered by certified mail, but I wouldn't be surprised.)  The company would be informed of the cancellation, and if they don't accept that, there are no funds available.

Most sites use third parties to manage their transactions. When you enter credit card information for a random subscription, the site doesn't have access to your credit card information. The third party payer does. And the regulations around that information are pretty strict.

For instance, at my employer, I oversee a website that collects and stores credit card payments for certain trancations. Those payments never touch our web-server. It is all managed by a third party who has a form on our site that goes directly to that third party.

[SEWIGuy]

I recall a lot of people thought Flickr going to a paid model for unlimited storage would tank the site.  That page has been the only one of my storage mediums that hasn't tanked since 2017.

Gosh its almost like if companies have revenue for a service, that service can improve.

[Molandfreak]

Your first paragraph makes no sense from a business perspective. No one is going to sign up for a subscribtion Reddit-type site when it launches because it has no value. The users, and the interaction between them, is what provides the value. Setting up the site....attracting users and the value they bring...and then figuring out how exactly to monetize it IS the business plan.

Any taking away of still-used functionality (or putting free functionality behind a paywall) or making the user experience worse is morally repugnant and, quite frankly, should not be legal at all.  I could see offering the service for free for a year or two and then charging, but such must be disclosed in advance so that people are not surprised (such would also prevent the world from changing in ways that would cause monetization to cause such problems for citizens).

It should be illegal for Reddit to charge its users? What the hell is going wrong with this forum?

Not to mention "morally repugnant." Which is strange, because I don't even think its unethical. Businesses do this all of the time.

For example, a local ice cream shop has a grand opening where it offers free samples. Is it then "morally repugnant" to charge for the ice cream later?

If I go to an ice cream shop and get a free sample, I am under no delusion that it is a gift, they expect me to purchase something immediately after trying the sample, and they may not offer samples in the future if people decide to take advantage of it. With any social media, the assumption of millions of users is that anything that is accessible for free will continue to be free in perpetuity.

[Max Rockatansky]

I recall a lot of people thought Flickr going to a paid model for unlimited storage would tank the site.  That page has been the only one of my storage mediums that hasn't tanked since 2017.

Gosh its almost like if companies have revenue for a service, that service can improve.

Me personally, I'm good paying for stability.  I've never had consistent luck with portable storage devices and been burned by relying on them a couple times.

[SEWIGuy]

Your first paragraph makes no sense from a business perspective. No one is going to sign up for a subscribtion Reddit-type site when it launches because it has no value. The users, and the interaction between them, is what provides the value. Setting up the site....attracting users and the value they bring...and then figuring out how exactly to monetize it IS the business plan.

Any taking away of still-used functionality (or putting free functionality behind a paywall) or making the user experience worse is morally repugnant and, quite frankly, should not be legal at all.  I could see offering the service for free for a year or two and then charging, but such must be disclosed in advance so that people are not surprised (such would also prevent the world from changing in ways that would cause monetization to cause such problems for citizens).

It should be illegal for Reddit to charge its users? What the hell is going wrong with this forum?

Not to mention "morally repugnant." Which is strange, because I don't even think its unethical. Businesses do this all of the time.

For example, a local ice cream shop has a grand opening where it offers free samples. Is it then "morally repugnant" to charge for the ice cream later?

If I go to an ice cream shop and get a free sample, I am under no delusion that it is a gift, they expect me to purchase something immediately after trying the sample, and they may not offer samples in the future if people decide to take advantage of it. With any social media, the assumption of millions of users is that anything that is accessible for free will continue to be free in perpetuity.

So it's "morally repugnant" to get something free for a longer period of time???

I mean, would it be "morally repugnant" for the AARoads mods to charge $5 a month for this site??

What if the aforementioned ice cream shop had "Free Ice Cream Mondays" where all customers got a free scoop. After a few months, they realized they're losing a lot of money on the deal and stop the promotion. Is that "morally repugnant" as well??

[Molandfreak]

Your first paragraph makes no sense from a business perspective. No one is going to sign up for a subscribtion Reddit-type site when it launches because it has no value. The users, and the interaction between them, is what provides the value. Setting up the site....attracting users and the value they bring...and then figuring out how exactly to monetize it IS the business plan.

Any taking away of still-used functionality (or putting free functionality behind a paywall) or making the user experience worse is morally repugnant and, quite frankly, should not be legal at all.  I could see offering the service for free for a year or two and then charging, but such must be disclosed in advance so that people are not surprised (such would also prevent the world from changing in ways that would cause monetization to cause such problems for citizens).

It should be illegal for Reddit to charge its users? What the hell is going wrong with this forum?

Not to mention "morally repugnant." Which is strange, because I don't even think its unethical. Businesses do this all of the time.

For example, a local ice cream shop has a grand opening where it offers free samples. Is it then "morally repugnant" to charge for the ice cream later?

If I go to an ice cream shop and get a free sample, I am under no delusion that it is a gift, they expect me to purchase something immediately after trying the sample, and they may not offer samples in the future if people decide to take advantage of it. With any social media, the assumption of millions of users is that anything that is accessible for free will continue to be free in perpetuity.

So it's "morally repugnant" to get something free for a longer period of time???

I mean, would it be "morally repugnant" for the AARoads mods to charge $5 a month for this site??

Yes, it would be.

However, if they introduced an "AARoads Gold Forum" where users have to pay to access and get additional perks, but kept every other portion of the forum free to use, that would be fine.

[SEWIGuy]

Your first paragraph makes no sense from a business perspective. No one is going to sign up for a subscribtion Reddit-type site when it launches because it has no value. The users, and the interaction between them, is what provides the value. Setting up the site....attracting users and the value they bring...and then figuring out how exactly to monetize it IS the business plan.

Any taking away of still-used functionality (or putting free functionality behind a paywall) or making the user experience worse is morally repugnant and, quite frankly, should not be legal at all.  I could see offering the service for free for a year or two and then charging, but such must be disclosed in advance so that people are not surprised (such would also prevent the world from changing in ways that would cause monetization to cause such problems for citizens).

It should be illegal for Reddit to charge its users? What the hell is going wrong with this forum?

Not to mention "morally repugnant." Which is strange, because I don't even think its unethical. Businesses do this all of the time.

For example, a local ice cream shop has a grand opening where it offers free samples. Is it then "morally repugnant" to charge for the ice cream later?

If I go to an ice cream shop and get a free sample, I am under no delusion that it is a gift, they expect me to purchase something immediately after trying the sample, and they may not offer samples in the future if people decide to take advantage of it. With any social media, the assumption of millions of users is that anything that is accessible for free will continue to be free in perpetuity.

So it's "morally repugnant" to get something free for a longer period of time???

I mean, would it be "morally repugnant" for the AARoads mods to charge $5 a month for this site??

Yes, it would be.

However, if they introduced an "AARoads Gold Forum" where users have to pay to access and get additional perks, but kept every other portion of the forum free to use, that would be fine.

That's ridiculous.

Annoying? Sure.  Morally repugnant? Gimme a break...

[thspfc]

My thoughts on the matter have not changed. I do not respect companies who monetize content that was previously free.

All the power to ya my friend. You are under zero obligation to respect such a company at all. They won't see a dime of your money.

As to whether it's "morally repugnant", how does anyone have the energy to care? Corporations acting in their own best financial interest has been a truth of America for 248 years, 7 months, and 12 days, and will be a truth of America for double that no matter what adjectives we use on the internet. I cannot imagine paying this much headspace to something completely out of your control and with such low stakes. Nobody gets sick, injured, or killed as a result of this decision. This discourse is honestly stunning to see. Maybe eventually we'll decide to focus on how we can make the existing world better instead of fetishizing over a new world where everything is always morally right.

[Molandfreak]

Paywalling is ridiculous enough as it is. The other day, the Los Angeles Times wanted me to subscribe to access an article written in 1992. Accessing information for niche historical interests is obviously not the same as accessing reporting on current events.

[Max Rockatansky]

Considering the headache it has been to keep this forum active I'm surprised the idea of a subscription hasn't been floated.  That said, I'm guessing that the AAroads Facebook page probably generates a decent chunk of engagement revenue.  I have no idea if that is enough to offset maintaining this site?

[kalvado]

I recall a lot of people thought Flickr going to a paid model for unlimited storage would tank the site.  That page has been the only one of my storage mediums that hasn't tanked since 2017.

Gosh its almost like if companies have revenue for a service, that service can improve.

I don't disagree - but in case of reddit, as well as scientific journals, the value is created primarily by users - who are now invited to pay for the privilege of creating that value.
I don't know how to resolve this. Scientific publications are going through interesting hoops due to that...