> Creator produces content. I pay creator for content. Did you just suggest that the most traditional, direct business model ever created, value for value, is a "bad" one?

It isn't "value for value", it's a donation. The most traditional, direct business model ever created involves you not having the content until you pay.

More precisely, a donation is voluntary, whereas in the direct business model payment is mandatory. Before or after, is just a contractual thing :)

Someone needs to re-read the penny gap.

People HATE being nickel and dimed. Exactly zero people want to have to think to themselves "is this news article worth 5 cents?" every time they load a web page.

Right, which is why patreon works, and 10c per pageview doesn't.

But do they hate it less than ads?

If you pay for mobile service per GB then you already have this problem.

"Value for value" is fine; but the value of watching a video or reading an article is usually about zero to me, something I could easily do without, something that might even carry a negative value since it takes up my time. In fact, since it usually benefits the maker to have more viewers, maybe they should try paying me to watch.

"Consumers" (a problematic term) need a refrigerator to keep food cold, figuratively speaking. They don't need "content." If money is what people care about, they should get into the refrigerator business. (In China, since that's where it is now.)

The web isn't a money machine. If everybody who wanted to get paid for it, got the hell off it or was starved off it, that also would lead to the positive fundamental change of which you speak. Just sayin'.