> "If they don't have money, why should I care about them?" See, that's the classist attitude I was talking about the other day.

No, it is "If they don't want to pay me anything, why should I work for free for them?" - because you don't want to acknowledge that an actual person has to do hard work to create things.

> It seems to me that #1, you assume consumers have infinite money for infinite streaming services, and that if they don't it is because they don't want it hard enough.

Nobody has infinite money, and even if they did, they don't have infinite time to spend on consuming content. But there are an infinite amount of consumers, for all intents and purposes, so everybody who produces something good should be ideally be able to find enough paying consumers to continue with their craft. There are niches, simply. But yes, every person has to prioritize and budget how they spend their money, what they want most and what they can skip.

> effort is not equal to deserving money

If what they produce is so bad that they don't deserve getting reimbursed for it, why do you insist that people should have access to it for free? It's like going to the restaurant and saying that the food is so disgusting that I won't pay for it, but please can I have it for free I really want it and hey why are you locking me out?

> You seriously think that people are going to pay you without already knowing what you put out?

That's not how it works. Trials, snippets, limited content is how it works. Depending entirely on what you sell. Word of mouth, etc.

> Wow, rude. Also Curiosity stream is a terrible example because most of those documentaries are older than the streaming service itself, and are available for free on their official youtube channels. Its only benefit is that it congregates the content into one space.

I wasn't intending to be rude. You wrote that there had to be "a looooot" of content behind a paywall for it to be worth paying, so I understood it as that quantity was of more importance than quality. If Curiosity Stream is a terrible example, let me ask you if there is any paid example that you consider good value at all?

> Look, if you are so uninvolved with your community that you need a local newspaper to spoon-feed you what is happening in your own back yard, that is entirely on you.

Good journalism is way better than gossip, because they actually go and interview the people involved, and make room for a more open discussion. But not everybody is interested, not everybody has to be.

> Paywalls are one of the least industrious, most outdated, and ineffectual models possible. Unless you have lots of money to magically throw around, its terrible for the consumer and alternatives are superior.

Paywalls are the only sustainable way forward for creators, but they should be better packaged to benefit both seller and buyer better. Subscription fatigue is real and creators would benefit to team up under umbrellas, so that there is plenty for the consumer within the subscription, and plenty of consumers interested in paying. So instead of convincing 1000 subscribers to pay you $5 each, you'll team up with 9 other creators and have 100 000 subscribers paying $5 each for the umbrella subscription.