I don't have a very informed understanding of the economics of journalism so maybe this post is retarded, but w/e. My understanding though is, with online journalism, the revenue model is basically: more views = more ads shown = more money And I think the end result is that producing lots of low quality clickbait content ends up being more profitable than high quality content that takes a lot of time to produce. Maybe someone with knowledge in this domain can clarify if this is correct or not? I've been thinking: what if you have a model where advertising revenue is not divided per view, but based on what a user likes? You'd have a website that is some sort of content aggregate, like YouTube. The amount of advertising revenue generated by the user is divided by what the user has "liked" in the month, rather than what he has viewed. Not sure what problems a system like would have, or if it would actually promote high quality content. Thoughts? edit: I should have included an example: Bob is a user on MemeMedia. Bob views 100 articles, generating $100 ($1 x 100 articles) in advertising revenue. He likes 10 of those articles. MemeMedia takes a 50% cut, which leaves 5% x 10 for each of those article authors, so each article author gets 5%.