- Time removed its paywall in June 2023, resulting in a rise in advertising revenue but a loss of digital subscribers, with traffic remaining relatively flat.
- The decision was influenced by broader industry trends and the publisher’s focus on working with advertisers and leveraging its brand equity in other ventures.
- Time aims to achieve profitability by expanding its direct advertising and sponsorship business, growing its global events slate, and exploring new ventures like connected television.
Why haven’t publication embraced crypto donations like BAT?
I feel much better about sending tokens ive earned by selling my attention, and then sending those earnings to publications which garner my attention.
Is media just too old to adapt?
Probably because the overwhelming majority of people see crypto as a scam, and the market share for its use is trivial and better facilitated by actual currency. As well, it’s extremely volatile and the flagship coin recently halfed itself. It’s probably one of the worst things a company can accept in exchange for goods or services.
Do you know what halving means? It’s not a stock split and it’s not a value halving.
Ah, so the people creating essentially get paid half for the same amount of work. That’s WAY better lol. Yeah, I’m not super into knowing so much about faux currency. I tend to deal with the real kind. So please pardon my mistake 🙏
Here’s some more 101 info: Computers do the work, not people.
Oh, are you talking about the insanely high non-renewable energy used to mine coin and distribute, which is way beyond even AI?
Because I think it’s pretty evident that the coin halving heavily impacts our environment as it now takes twice as much energy to create the same value.
Actually giving a shit about the Earth 101 for ya.
They said, having zero knowledge of the subject and nothing at all to back it up.
Better crypto use the power than AI.
Ok, techbro lmao. Crypto using more fossil fuels in 2020 than AI will three years from now is a heck of a hill to die on.
LoL, no with stock splitting you get the same value only with more stocks that can go up in value eventually. This is worse cause the same amount of work*(arguably more considering how many server farms are out there mining the same coin now as opposed to back when it started)* for half the value. So, in a very real sense it does actually halve the value. And that’s not even looking at the fact that crypto currency has no inherited value. It’s not backed by anything but the investment of interest by crypto bros and shady groups looking to hide transactions and assets.
Why mention something you don’t understand at all?
What, you mean I read a headline and repeated it in the wrong context? Damnit. I totally should have wasted 20 minutes reading further about a faux currency that I can’t even buy groceries with
Nah, way better to just spout off misinformation about things you won’t even take 20 mins to educate yourself about.
Ah, making a mistake is spouting misinformation. I see you love hyperbole! I’ll be sure to tell my high school students when they get quiz question wrong their answers are misinformation because they didn’t study. See, I like hyperbole, too
You didn’t “make a mistake”, you admitted you have no idea what it meant, chose not to take a mere 20 minutes to understand it, but chose to spout off about it anyways.
This isn’t a quiz, you aren’t required to post about things you are ignorant of.
Complete ignorance is pretty standard among anti-crypto extremists.
The old perception is reality, while your not wrong, still means decent institutions are losing out on funding options.
Credit cards were seen as a scam at one point because scary digital currency. Same with torrent protocol. To be honest I’m suprised lemmy doesn’t accept it for server donations.
So its either stay with the current model which is visibly dying or find another way
I mean, I don’t think accepting crypto would make or break any organization beyond a niche mom and pop operation. If they would die without accepting crypto, they are likely not going to be saved by it. I doubt there are many people, especially in the USA, who would or could only donate via that option.
In my personal opinion, crypto IS a scam and every organization would be best served dealing in real currency.
iTs A sCaM
If I can’t buy groceries, pay rent or medical bills with it, it’s in not a real currency. If I can’t bail myself out with it, it’s not a real currency. But sure, somehow paying money to get faux money that can’t really practically pay for my needs, and then needs to be reconverted to real currency to take care of my needs is somehow not a scam.
Also, I’m sure you’re super cool with the insane non-renewable energy cost of bitcoin mining and distribution. It far outweighs the energy cost of AI that everyone is complaining about.
So any other fiat currency not your own is not real?
If you do end up with “real” money, where’s the scam?
Got evidence to support that? Not all cryptocurrencies rely solely on mining.
FYI i’m not defending cryptocurrencies, most do seem scammy, i’m just poking fun at dealing in absolutes and talking out of one’s ass.
No, any currency that is not widely accepted and is not able to be used to pay for necessities is not a real currency. Fiat currency is government issued. Crypto is in no way a fiat currency.
Let’s see… extreme volatility, lack of regulation, lack of consumer protection, the fact that many ICO’s have turned out to be scams really points to crypto being a scam. Not to mention that whatever profit you think you made in no way offsets the damage to the Earth from using more non-renewable energy than even AI (which is saying A LOT).
Bitcoin- 173.42 terawatt-hours used in 2020-2021. It has increased since then.
UN Study: https://unu.edu/press-release/un-study-reveals-hidden-environmental-impacts-bitcoin-carbon-not-only-harmful-product
AI is estimated to ramp up to using 134 terawatt-hours by 2027. This means they use much less than that now, and are estimated to be below 2020’s bitcoin power consumption after ramping up for 3 more years.
Study, paywalled but with sources listed:
https://www.cell.com/joule/abstract/S2542-4351(23)00365-3?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2542435123003653%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
Bitcoin also uses over 60% non-renewable resources compared to AI which much more heavily leans into renewable in data centers. It’s not even a contest, crypto is extremely bad for the environment.
This guy understands what state currency and freedom really mean.
Ah yes, the dying media will be saved by the currency that doesn’t have widespread support.
This is linux style thinking. The whole “I see the advantage of this way, and maybe it even is a more efficient way of doing things, but without widespread support I’ll continue to be baffled by why others don’t see the world the way I do”.
Because everything about Brave is complete fucking nonsense and doing business with them in any way is deranged.
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Why won’t you do my obvious scam? are you an old?
Why would it have to be a crypto donation? Their bank accounts are in USD. Most of their readers have USD. People can transfer USD. What does some arbitrary crypto thing you want to pretend is money add that makes it better for those “most people”?
Yes all over the world people can send USD but the banks take a big cut.
If by “a big cut” you mean maybe a few percent, and that most businesses take electronic payments anyway because there are advantages (people are more likely to buy stuff when convenient, accounting is easier, less risk of theft/loss than physical cash, etc) then sure, I guess.
If you think the solution is to make up a new kind of imaginary money that takes a shitton of energy to maintain, which has tons of different types (Bitcoin, Ethereum, whatever one was referenced in the initial comment) and would happen to greatly benefit those who happened to be early adopters (TOTAL coincidence, I’m sure)… No.
Using crypto helps diversify wealth away from the banks and individuals that own the overwhelming majority of dollars, euros, etc.
Who do you want to benefit?
Generally speaking, people who contribute to society.
I don’t see “gambling on the right cryptocurrency” as a contribution to society. I also don’t see how “individuals that own the overwhelming majority of dollars, euros, etc.” wouldn’t simply become “individuals that own the overwhelming majority of cryptocurrency” by virtue of working with that
Okay but like, you also realize gas fees for transactions can get stupid expensive right? Banks don’t have variable rates.
The problem is that Time and every other news outlet think they are the cats pajamas and deserve your subscription. They suffer a similar problem to streaming platforms except news is not exclusive.
If these companies could organize and build a “pay once, get access to everything everywhere” model, they would see subscriptions go through the roof and get more money. But since the owners of these news outlets want only their own subscribers to go up, it’s never going to happen.
I’m not going to pay for 5-10 news subscriptions no matter how great the reporting is.
But I’d be willing to pay $20 or so a month if that meant I can access any article on any news website.
> pay once, get access to everything everywhere
> thinks about Elsevier
OH GOD PLEASE NO
I use (paid) Apple News, and I really enjoy it. Are there no other “pay once” platforms out there?
My only complaint is that some articles still show ads despite being subscribed, but that’s taken care of with DNS-based ad blocking (though you have to also block a a hostname pointing to an Apple DoH server which I find funny).
BAT is trash but I’d love to see more quick crypto donation options.
deleted by creator
That’s not a problem. That’s the correct reaction.
deleted by creator
That would have been true if legit crypto existed.
deleted by creator
Ahhh yes. Some of them are just made up things that people say is totally money, while the others are actually just made up things that people say is totally money. Huge difference, I’m sure.
deleted by creator
I’m not trying to to die on the sword of bat, but for end users being able to just easily transfer or donate without having to know crypto…
Convenience and security is a balance.
Everything that is convenient is not secure.
Everything that is secure is not convenient.
Crypto that is “easy” screams “these people will lose all their money because it isn’t secure.”
But my credit union is both more convenient and more secure than crypto.
Oh agreed, wholeheartedly. I really just meant that if you’re going to push crypto to consumers, giving them nonsecure options is pretty bad.
maybe it is tax reasons? I know that for personal taxes you have to simply declare crypto earnings but business tax laws don’t really like grey areas.
The tax man doesn’t care if your business takes cash, card, or crypto. Income is income, whether you’re a business or a regular joe.
I don’t think it’s that simple for a business. Crypto is simultaneously an asset and an income once it is sold, but also not a traditionally defined accounting asset. Combine that with how slow the government has been to properly define crypto, I bet most businesses would rather just not have to deal with it. Last thing they’d want is the IRS coming after them for doing it wrong.
As someone who’s accepted crypto as payment for about 10 years now, it really isn’t. Income is income to the IRS. You pay taxes on the value of the crypto you received as payment, full stop. It really doesn’t matter what you accept as payment. Could be crypto, could be russet potatos.