> Asking them to "pony up" their own money would, with no doubt in my mind, drive them away and completely destroy Reddit.
He wrote nowhere that mods should pay. I as a user would certainly pay $10/yr to keep subreddits I care most about going on.
He wrote nowhere that mods should pay. I as a user would certainly pay $10/yr to keep subreddits I care most about going on.
> I as a user would certainly pay $10/yr to keep subreddits I care most about going on.
How many subreddits and how many years would you be willing to do this for? This might be feasible for subs like r/AskReddit, r/iama, and the other big ones, but as many other people in this thread have mentioned, "powerhouse" Reddit users are the ones that don't follow the terrible front page subs, and have found their niche. One of my favorite subs to go to, r/tabbletennis, has only about 2k subscribers, and I'm sure that there are more subs that certain people love, but have even less subscribers.
My point is that the logical point for payment would be through a mod, and I'm sure that outside of the larger subs, mods would be the ones footing the bill. This is a very dangerous game as mods are the pillars upon which Reddit stand, and aggravating them would pretty much be the death of Reddit.
No way as a user i would pay $10/yr when there are multiple sites that will do the same thing as Reddit for free.
Im not interested in paying any website for the privilege of expressing my opinion and reading others.
Do you think users would pay for this? besides, do you think the 2nd point has a scope of creeping in poop?
Yes, i see point b) having a scope of creeping in poop.
I'm pretty sure that point b) was a large part of the reason for the downfall of Digg.