How many here can afford an extra 42 bucks a year?

What a terrible time to make a change to one of the greatest information resources on the internet. How many people here are out of work? How many people here can afford another 45 dollars a month. Why gouge the people who rely on this site for news, information and sometimes entertainment. I just needed to get my two cents in, go ahead and flame away.

ps $42-60/yr, not month

And as always, those who choose not to purchase a star will still be able to post and participate free of charge.


I don't like the idea that I can't do my minimum, get a star and not see the ads, but we will still be able to post, if we choose to, for free.

certain forums.

But we're faced with decisions every day in life.
I guess we will have to decide if a message board is really that important or not.
I won't pay the 42 or 60 or whatever the cost is per year/month, but I will most likely still continue to post. I can always ignore the ads if I choose to continue posting.

From his Post #52 (replying to a question on this in his thread).

"On DU3 you will still be able to buy a star which will remove all of the ads from the site and provide you with access to special functions and features". Skinner. From the announcement OP.

whether one has a star or not. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2300356#2300552

All DU'ers will have access to DU3 Groups and Forums.

Sid

:shrug:

wasn't it that much per year?

this change now comes because DU is doing so well. :sarcasm:

That is what really got me. Essentially the presentation was that because DU is doing so well instead of a quarterly fund drive we're going to charge a piss-load more and make it nearly impossible for members to donate on behalf of those that are financially unable.

Epic fail, and I really resent the presentation that comes off as us being too stupid to figure out the math that adds up to an enormous increase in payment.

''Epic fail, and I really resent the presentation that comes off as us being too stupid to figure out the math that adds up to an enormous increase in payment. ''

The original post made it sound like such a grand deal, didn't it? What a pitch! :rofl:

Well said.

if you opt for the $5/month non-renewable.

Nonetheless, I do not discount the difficulties even $3.50/month every month would be for someone struggling. At all. :shrug:

and you don't have to pay it to be a member, and to post, and to read.

:shrug:

I like being able to read.

no flames here.

$42 peryear seems reasonable to me

The math error. The suggestion that it's some big expense. The idea of paying money for a few minor features on a website in 2011. Or calling this place a great source of information.

I'm a democrat and I have a sense of humor.

hang here in GD gossip-du-jour with some worthwhile stuff?

LBN has a lot of information and a good gathering of news.

And that's a perfect example of why I don't consider it serious business.

other posts you have made? There are lots of reasons.

:shrug:

I do not think that one is as it proclaims itself.

I'm sure gonna miss DU's search feature. :(

You seem to have a lot of answers...............

The price of everything continues to go up except paychecks. Put all the bills together & $42 for reading a website will seem like a luxury item, a bill that could be eliminated, to my husband. I can hear him now: "Find another source for news & I'll be your entertainment." ;)

On the other hand, "this place" IS a great source of information for those who like factual articles, thanks to those DUers who scour the internet for the latest developments -- beating the MSM, I might add.

Skinner said:Instead, stars (and the benefits that come with them) will be available for purchase on a monthly or yearly basis for as little as $3.50 a month." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2300356&mesg_id=2300356

In a message further down in that thread he said: "18. I think it's going to be $5/month, OR $3.50/month when you purchase a yearly recurring membership (for $42)." (Emphasis added.)http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2300356&mesg_id=2300399

Yes for some in these times even $3.50 to $5 per month may not be possible, but NO ONE is talking about $45 per month!

when what you consider truth is an easily proven math error instead.

I do pretty well with my budget, but I watch my expenses and I'm supporting a couple of disabled/out of work family members. That would be a luxury, and right now it would be a bit of a stretch for me.

No flames.

Whatchagonna do? It's their party, we're just guests at it.

and you will only pay $60/year, if you don't have the $42 all in one lump sum...

When I look at my expenses, and the people I'm caring for, I have to ask myself, who needs it more? I am a Family First type. The brother with the stroke beats amusement on the internet, every time.

It's fine, though--I can do without. It is what it is. Complaining might be good for the soul, but I don't think it's going to change the site owner's business model. They've made up their minds, I think.

Alas, alack!

Never budgeted so strictly in the past, but I am now.

enlighten some of us that don't understand.

I understand that for some folks $42 a year may also be out of reach, but that's a far cry from the completely erroneous claim in your OP.

you're being fucking persecuted, because if you have no money, DU has always been free to access.

this crying is pathetic. DU doesn't owe you anything.

Sid

Poutrage is free!

hell use Firefox or Chrome to dump the ads and as long as you don't mind not having a star you can take part in almost the entire site. A pretty good bargain for free.

from the site and provide you with access to special functions and features".

Why make it so difficult to have all member of DU on an equal footing.

This new subscription model is going to make it less likely for people to be able to donate stars to others.

unless they change them from the current ones are things like search, buddy lists and a few forums that I've never really bothered with. Using Firefox or Chrome with Adblock gets rid of all the ads, no star needed.

Donating stars will be difficult if I read the message properly and I hope they fix that up.

I don't know what special functions and stuff is connected to having a star...I don't post to other forums really except LBN, GD and GDP so that won't bother me. Nor do I do any searching. Only bells/whistle I use is "my DU" to look for replies but I'll deal with that when the time comes if it is a "special feature".

Not that they aren't a beautiful people- we just don't have enough space over here in the house. Were would I even keep an extra dozen Hmong?

PB

I don't see any reason for the change. Why "fix" it since it ain't broke? I may be a progressive, but I am anti-"progress" in this case!

bah humbug

I don't think anyone is going to be holding you upside down to shake the change out so the CAPS may be a bit of an overkill.

simply cannot afford it.

How many posts have there been about members who are unemployed and are barely making it? I think this new membership fee is discriminatory. OK, OK, I know, you don't have to pay anything to participate .... but we are far more egalitarian under the current structure. I'm adopting a "wait-and-see" attitude about it right now.

The haves and the have-nots. Exactly the kind of thing progressives are supposed to abhor. What's the problem? many say. So look at the ads! Michelle Bachmann or Newt Gingrich couldn't say it better.

Even though I could afford it, I will stand with the have-nots. I hope we all post endless, interminable threads about the shitty ads.

We already have a two-tiered system. Donors already get access to extra perks like no ads and access to groups that non-donors don't. The new system will actually make it less exclusivist in that non-donors will have access to the groups forum that they don't have now

:shrug:

So it's not particularly terrible and you do have an option to read and post for nothing.

The rates seems reasonable to me but I know that there will be some who can't afford it.

I guess some here feel that DU should be totally free and that Skinner should be happy pay the OH costs just to listen to all of us complain without expecting people to pay for the privilege.

Because everything else in life is free, why not DU? /sarcasm

Which one of us is missing something? (Hint: It isnt me)

"On DU3 you will still be able to buy a star which will remove all of the ads from the site and provide you with access to special functions and features."

Yes, it is you.

:eyes:

DU is doing so great, making so much money off ads that we're increasing your annual donation from $5 to $60! Rather than that one time $5 donation, now you get to pay $5/month so we don't have to beg during fund raisers!!!!

You want something for nothing?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2301207&mesg_id=2301432

For some of us it is a huge jump in cost.

getting to post/read for nothing just isn't fair. They should get the incentives Skinner uses to get donations for nothing as well.

from $5-10 annual payment to $60 as a big thing. I hope you realize the irony in the fact that you are replying to someone who doesn't have a star, hasn't donated and is getting to post/read for nothing.

Those that can't afford the terms have options here. I can't think of any fairer system that what Skinner proposes. Unless, of course, you think he should subsidize the costs of hosting/maintaining DU?

I'd rather do fund drives and keep the minimum affordable for those who can't afford $60/yr. But hey, that's just me.

I certainly don't blame Skinner for wanting to stabilize his revenue stream and not have to worry quarter by quarter what his income is going to be. I'm sorry this is a hardship for some here at DU. But they do have options. And I really don't like the fundraising banners, so I'm glad they'll be dropped in the new version.

A star, at this point, is not an expense that I feel like incurring. Even so, I can still get all the use out of DU as I like to. Those who need bells as whistles can pay a little more for the privilege. Nothing changes in the new system.

Secondly, the fact that ads bring in so much revenue is EXACTLY the reason skinner is upping the cost of a user getting rid of those ads. Don't you understand how that works??

but others will be destroyed without one.

OH THE HUMANITY!!

and shocked that more didn't either read or understand it.

It's $3.50 a month - $42 a YEAR.

there is just a mistake in the additional text in the OP - where it says month it should say year.

It's only a typo!

He/she didn't change the reference in the body of his post, though. Regardless, it's a vanity post...he/she could have asked his question or complained in Skinner's original post, but decided his/her misinformed opinion was so important, it deserved a separate thread.

not paying 45 a month. easily give 42 a year. i already donate at least that for a start and the use of this site.... for a year.

I often leave DU up and that ad is a bit much.

Amazing.

If your nieces are picking up your phone, perhaps you shouldn't leave it lying around.

OR MAYBE....the reason they pick it up is because they know there will be an ad for a purple dildo on it and they think it's funny.

It's just not something I want to have to explain to them.

Color me embarrassed!

I can afford it and DU is worth every penny of it too. The reduced contribution needed for full membership couldn't have come at a better time either. Money is tight. And I still need to get some money together to send off for the Obama re-election campaign. So this saving will give me a little head start on that.

Thank you Skinner.

Don

free of charge. Making donations simply means that you will not have to put up with the ads and that you can post in the DU group forums, just like it is now. It doesn't mean you won't be able to post and participate otherwise. Some people need to learn better reading comprehension skills.

The new changes will be good only for the people that can afford $45/60 per year.

For the rest of us we can all 'eat cake' while having to look at all the ADS all over our DU pages.

There are some of us that have been able to buy a star at a reasonable price in order to not see the ads and to have full membership privileges, the reason folks are upset is because now the price is going WAY UP.

Anything else you want to complain about?

That's what everyone else on the intarwebz does.

It appears that donating only gets rid of ads and ability with search (though Skinner said they haven't programmed the search function yet), not including the fact that you're helping financially run a site that you participate on.

:sarcasm:

they get constructive input that calls for changes from enough members. Over the years I've been here, I've seen they are sensitive to the needs and expressed like/dislikes of even an intensely passionate minority about how the site is run, which is why the "UnRec" feature is apparently going away in DU3. Apparently a lot of people wanted a place like "Ask The Admins" put in place, and they did that. On an operational level, they seem very responsive that kind of constructive input (although I, for one, liked the UnRec feature).

And good riddance to both of them.

Free to post at will:)

Oh, we already are.

I tend to contribute more than that anyway. In another thread I suggested perhaps a tiered membership...for instance, at $10 year you get reduced number of ads. They do this on a snowboard forum I belong to. If you pay nothing, you get big banner and skyscraper ads and in-thread ads. The first membership level reduces the number of ads, and limits them to smaller banners and strips. Pay for premium and there are no ads. I think it's a good method that makes the site accessible to more people.

I don't blame Skinner for charging money; it's his site. And they just had a new baby, didn't they?

However . . . the $42/year charge will inevitably create classes within DU. Betcha the folks with stars are going to start denouncing freeloaders . . . . just sayin'.



Levels of membership

Have you never read someone discounting someone without a star?

there would be no classes! Nice slam at those who do pay, though. Those that do complain and don't pay, those are the righteous ones!

have one. I had one for years, was a moderator, and blah, blah, blah... Without the star, when in debate with someone, they would often refer to my starless status as making me somehow less of a DUer... I made a conscientious decision to stop donating to a site that banned so many for so few reasons during the GLBT purge. That said, I am so amazed at the generosity of DUers, to donate to others...especially the ones who do it without drawing attention to themselves. :hi:

Does it really bother you that somebody on an internet site may "denounce" you on a message board? Seriously, not worth my time or energy to care what somebody thinks of me on a message board.

I'm very sad. Seriously bruised by this.
:cry:

we object to, isn't it?

It's the principle of the thing.

Why is it not corporate pandering now?

How do we know the money we pay isn't being sent straight into, say, Ron Paul's campaign coffers? We know NOTHING about the income or expenditures of the money we donate.

Also, a donation is something given freely. The "monthly" dues is a subscription. Whole different ball game. This is clearly being done for the benefit of advertising revenue.

You don't jack up your fees by a factor of 8 without a better explanation. And you don't create a two-tiered system of haves and have-nots on a supposedly progressive community.

I have the $42. I will choose not to give it.

First it's being forced to view ads if you don't pay. (no difference from the present policy)

Then it's lack of transparency. (no different from the present policy)

Then it's creation of a two-tiered system. (which is no different from the present policy)

If DU doesn't meet your progressive ideals, it would be great if you would start a site of your own.

Just better hope that all your visitors don't share your attitude that ads OR $3.50 a month is simply intolerable.

As I said ^^^ in this thread, the largest loss, for me, will be the search function. Being able to research issues on DU is, again, for me, invaluable. I don't have to skirt across the web to seek out support for almost anything - it's all been here on DU for me for years. And as a semi-disabled person, this ability has saved me a lot of grief, time, and physical pain.

There's also the issue of cost. As you shuld now be aware, there are many here who simply can not afford $42.00 a year for donor access on DU. Prior to this decision, DUers were practically equal in status - there was very little 'monetary value' assigned. One could donate as little as a couple dollars a year and have unlimited access to donor features. Now, if one is poor, they can eat cake.

I've been fortunate enough to purchase and donate stars to others here in the past... now, I will no longer to even purchase one myself and yes, that hurts. It's just more salt into wounds, and the realization that the inability to pay cuts far deeper into my self-worth than I knew it could.

I am no longer a member of DU's immediate family, I am a poor relation. A different class of human on a website I contributed to across these many years. It hurts, and the pain is not near 'simple'.

And to those of you who 'simply' don't get people like me, I get you. To paraphrase Barbara Bush, why would those of you with the ability to pay a $42.00 subscription fee "Waste your beautiful minds" about thinking about those of us who can't?

Maybe because this is suppose to be a progressive democratic website that cares about its users and the people of this world. Or, so I thought.

HALD

Melinda

I'll only say that I don't think most people on DU think that way.

Sincerely, have a nice day.

There is a major difference between what I said and what you understand me to have said. Feelings of sadness because I haven't deep pockets do not equal loss of self-esteem, they equal sadness - they equal feelings, valid feelings. My reference to self worth is not about self esteem, it's about lack of deep pockets... my monetary value is in negative territory, my self esteem is just fine, tyvm.

Apparently you don't have the same loss of income I do, which explains the apparent lack of empathy on your part. However, it doesn't explain your lack of reply to my core response to the issue you raised to begin with. That's why I responded when I answered you, I thought you were sincerely interested. Sincerely - that's a word that gets tossed around in a quite a cavalier fashion these days.

Lovely "talking" with you.

-Melinda, who is outta here.

**on edit - too many caps.

?????


OK, I'll stop responding until you can figure out what you're trying to say because what you just posted contradicts the above quote.

I am worth approximately $645.00 at the moment. That is what this self is worth. Now that Skinner has announced the new subscription fee, my self worth will take a negative hit if I participate, and that will hurt my bottom line. I never thought $42.00 a year could possibly affect me in a negative way, but it will.

My self esteem has to do with my ego and my feelings. Nothing Skinner can do or doesn't do will affect how I feel about myself.

You've misinterpreted my definition of self-worth to mean self-esteem. Perhaps it's colloquial... dunno. I've tried 2x to explain this, I hope you understand it now... I can't continue typing anymore today.

-Melinda, who is really really gone this time.

:shrug:

I'm sure many have done that - I have for periods of time.

for me the cost is going up, but for the fact that it seems something like what OWS is talking about.

Weird that THIS is the best time and weird that it's HERE of all places! Greed is GOOD????

I just hooked up with FB because of OWS, maybe info there is just as good. I do see a lot of posts there that are here. We'll see. MAYBE DU just made a BIG BOO-BOO!

I was always okay with making the occasional donation. But I'm not going to pay a monthly fee of any size for the privilege of being told, for example, that I'm not progressive because I don't subscribe to the (Ron Paul - Cato Institute) belief that "End the Fed" is a great progressive idea. I mean, that's fun for free, but you'd have to be nuts to pay for being insulted by a barrage of totally confused nutters all the time. I mean, really, I think I'll send a $42 donation to a progressive group or to the presidential campaign (to which I already make a monthly donation).

Is there any transparency here? (Maybe there is and I've never seen it.) I don't like the idea of not knowing exactly how this money is being spent. And I never have. It seems to me this is a bow to the advertisers, who don't like the fact that those who donate don't have to look at their ads. Believe me, I have NEVER clicked on any ad on any web site, ever. But I'm not going to pay to overcome any loss of advertising revenue. Maybe show us a spread sheet of income and expenditures and I might change my mind.

I don't know if I'll completely leave. But I know for sure that I do not believe that this is an appropriate model for public discussion on the Internet. Not for a supposedly liberal web site.

You say this change comes because you are doing well, yet you demand an increase by many hundred percent just to retain full access to the site.

If you are asking for a subscription rather than donations, then I think you do owe financial transparency to your subscribers.

Where does your money come from? Who gives you how much, and where does it go?

Does the Democratic Party or do organizations connected to the Democratic Party have any connection to this board, monetary or otherwise?

And how are your funding sources - input and output - changing as we move to DU3?

I've been starless for years now, mostly just haven't really given much thought to contributing to DU. Seeing the ads was a little weird at first, but I've gotten used to them. I don't mind it in the least bit considering that I'm accessing this site for free.

It's been great, but I'm done with all things political. It doesn't make any sense to post here anymore.

I've been a member for a long time, like the site, and appreciate what admin has done. I'll have to see just how this is implemented before judging completely.

Big difference.

I don't consider DU a "charity". :shrug:

But that really is hard for people on dial-up (i.e., those who can't afford the $42/year).

I'll spend about that this week on donations for the pet food pantry and the food bank, and if I had $42 more, I'd spend it on more stuff for them.

But I understand that the funding restrictions of keeping this site alive are considerable. And I don't think the cyber begging the current situation requires is sustainable in the long run, so I think we will have to accept a change.

way of the world, why should DU be any different?

But I won't. I also download movies and music off the Internet because they're free.

The world needs to deal with my choices, not the other way around.

if you can't afford $42 per year for DU, you shouldn't be spending $42 per year on DU.

Sid

that has just about drained every cent we have or will have in the next couple of years.

Hopefully, things will get better after that...BUT, right now...I just paid out my last few bucks and simply cannot wait until payday!

I don't have any extra to give anywhere. And that is the truth.

FREE! However, you want premium service, you pay premium prices.

I posted on this free site since 2001 and will continue to do so, for free, on DU3 and I BET I hardly notice the ads.

Just my two cents.

BTW, you might want to re-edit your post to reflect that actual cost of the service.

to change your business model to exclude or punish the less affluent... Not something I think Skinner intended, but under the "law of unintended consequences," I do believe this will be the result. We loose the improved cohesiveness that comes with fund drives, we send the message to less affluent members that their smaller contributions don't count--in fact not sufficient enough to be processed, and that this is the expected outcome of "success." I'm not applauding, I'm afraid--as much as I seek to give Skinner benefit of the doubt and support.

and I really, really _SUCK_ at this marketing thing. I make websites for a living, not market them.

So I just splurged $50 for a simple website and a domain name. Ads are not even coughing up a penny or two, despite my efforts.

And DU wants me to pay $42 a year to support their website? Maybe if people can come to my website and check things around.

Maybe help contribute.