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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So any other fiat currency not your own is not real?
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.
If you do end up with "real" money, where's the 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.
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.
So any other fiat currency not your own is not real?
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.
If you end up with “real” money, where’s the scam?
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).
Got evidence to support that?
Sure, you can also confirm with 30 seconds of Duck Duck Go.
Bitcoin- 173.42 terawatt-hours used in 2020-2021. It has increased since then.
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.
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.
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".
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 🙏
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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
