We're the co-founders of Readup and we're on a mission to overthrow the advertising industry and make it fun to read online again! Ask us anything!

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this but essentially you're stripping ads from articles and presenting them in an app with a subscription that also pays the authors of the articles?

Assuming any of that is correct, is there not an issue with stripping and repurposing articles and taking away revenue from the site? Do the companies the journalists work for agree with this model?

You understand it correctly!

Do the companies the journalists work for agree with this model?

We do not ask for prior permission. Our policy is that these companies (publishers) can claim all the money from the articles in their publication read on Readup. We still keep the public accounting on a writer-basis however. Adding information about the earnings of publishers is something we may add soon.

Have you received any C&Ds from any publishers? Are any sources blocked as a result of that?

No, we have not received any C&Ds so far.

EDIT: Check Bill's more elaborate response!

Yet is the key word here frendo.

True. I addressed this here

[deleted]

I think it's slightly different because they're billing it as essentially a browser with a built in ad blocker. I don't think they republish the article, just strip off the ads the same as adblock or something.

But that fine technical distinction probably won't matter to the legal team at Conde Nast. I just cannot imagine a world in which the lawyers over there read about this and don't immediately draft a C&D for these guys.

Even if the publishers were willing to participate, they're going to want to determine the terms of the deal instead of just whatever dollar value readup decides is enough.

And think about something like Apple News -- they reached a deal to pay for the content from these publishers and offer it to subscribers ad-free. The publishers are almost obligated to come down hard on readup because of that deal. Otherwise, how is that fair to apple, the partner they're happily working with already? "You have to pay us millions, but your competitor just throws us a few hundred bucks a month to provide their users with the same service." How's that going to fly?

As Thor said, no C&Ds so far. On the contrary, we have been in touch with several top leaders at many of the world's largest publishers and the conversations have been friendly and interesting. Generally speaking, they come to us. We don't do any marketing to publishers, and we're always very transparent about our biz model, our technology, our plans for the future, etc.

Regardless, I think your overall analysis is right on. We are fully aware that we're going to face some resistance from publishers, for exactly the reasons you outlined. We will get some C&Ds. There's no question about that. When it happens, we'll respond accordingly. If a publication doesn't want anything to do with Readup, we'll probably help to make that accommodation. (Our peers don't do this, by the way. Imagine a publication telling Facebook, "Stop allowing your users to share links to our articles on Facebook." How would that even work?)

I feel very confident going into these conversations because I'm confident about Readup's mission. We know who we're building this thing for. We have a strict rank order of priority:

(1) Readers (2) Writers (3) Publishers (X) Advertisers

To us, readers are more important than writers. And writers are more important than publishers. Advertisers don't exist to us.

Brave Browser with Basic Attention Tokens (BAT) already does this except for for all content creators.

It befuddles me that Brave comes up so often in these conversations. Brave is an ad platform. This is lifted directly from the Brave website:

The primary method for users to earn and utilize BAT is by viewing opt-in Brave Ads and earning virtual BAT (vBAT) through Brave Rewards.

Again: Why are we talking about Brave? Brave is a new and different way to see new and different ads. At Readup, we want to have a different conversation. We want to talk about not seeing ads.

The worst thing about reading on the internet for me is when trying to find a recipe and having to scroll down past the entire life story of the author before getting to the actual recipe. Is this something you'll be able to help us with?

No. But omg I have something perfect for you: https://www.justtherecipe.com/

The articles be like

Peanut Butter & Jelly Recipe

Paragraph 1: Scientists say that what we would consider modern-day peanuts first developed in what is now Iran around 50,000 BC.

Paragraph 4: The Puritans bought peanuts with them on the Mayflower because they could ward off evil spirits.

Paragraph 27: And I remember my mom used to cut the crusts off my sandwiches for me and they have a special place in my heart.

Step 1: Put peanut butter and jelly on bread. Step 2: eat

🏆

I’m a former journalist who left the field because of the ways that we were often paid. Pay-per-performance schemes just create clickbait. I’ve always wanted someone to bring back something to reward quality writing and this could be it. I’m also a veteran of the start-up world. Need some help?

YES! Email me: [email protected]

(It might take me a few days to reply, my inbox is getting a little silly right now and I've been ignoring it all day because I'm hanging out here.)

Going to track my reading? I dunno, sounds a bit suspicious.

Don't get me wrong, sounds like a laudable idea, just concerning how tracking seems like a necessary component.

Yes! It allows us to do 2 things:
1. Restrict comment sections to people who have fully read an article. This has proven to be a very effective moderation mechanism.
2. Kill clickbait & power a transparent recommendation engine. If Readup says: "20 reads", that means 20 humans fully read that article. That's much better info to evaluate whether an article is good than "200 views", which may have been a result of clickbait.
We only collect reading data to improve your reading. We're very transparent about which exact data we collect, and why, in our detailed (revolutionary?) Privacy Policy.

Click bait titles can still cause a reader to end up reading an article and realizing in the end that it was a crap article. So how exactly do you disincentivise click bait titles?

If you stop reading partway through because you realized it was just clickbait, you wouldnt count on their score.

Exactly.

In fact, we believe that Readup is pioneering a quantitative definition for clickbait (as well as a quantitative definition for quality) which is a pretty exciting thing that the industry really needs.

• Clickbait articles are articles that have a very low completion rate.
• Quality articles are articles that have a very high completion rate.

Ya... tracking my eye movements to verify I am reading? I'm not sure that makes it "fun".

The irony in an AMA about reading before comenting; and the commentors not reading the links provided.

THE INTERNET!

No eye tracking involved. Check out our privacy policy to get a sense of how we handle your data. While every other platform is using your information against you (to serve advertisers) we're pioneering a completely alternative arrangement that actually respects your time, attention AND privacy.

It makes perfect sense for you to be skeptical. But I suggest that you look under the hood and compare our practices and policies to the current status quo (sites like FB, Reddit, NYTimes, etc.) to see that we're building something that's truly more humane.

I think it's a really interesting idea.

​

Whilst I don't agree that the advertising industry needs to be overthrown (it allows people to read/watch content for free, not everyone can afford or is willing to pay, and I don't think that should mean they can't have access to it), I don't think there's anything wrong with having the option to pay and not be served any adverts.

​

My question is - what does it mean for a writer in real terms? Should they expect more revenue from you per 1,000 reads, than from advertisers?

Yes. Writers will make WAY MORE MONEY on Readup.

If you know anybody who has ever tried to make a living as a writer, you know that it's pretty much impossible to do so. (Medium and Substack, for the record, are nowhere near solving this problem. Plus, on those platforms you have to write on Medium or on Substack. Readup's proposition is different. You don't have to write on Readup. You can't! Instead, you write wherever you write -- including Medium/Substack -- and we'll just help you make more money.)

Readup is still super small (~5,000 readers total, <1,000 active) and look how much money we're already making for the writers!! When we have millions of people reading on this thing, it's going to be insane. Think: Writers making six figures/year, and not because they're celebrities on Twitter but because they're just writing good stuff that people actually enjoy reading.

Maybe it's just me, but these numbers do not seem impressive.

Bari Weiss quit the New York Times and is now earning $800,000/year on substack after a couple months on their platform.

The beauty of Medium and Substack is that they keep writers doing what they do best -- writing -- and obfuscate all the things that they don't do as well like hosting a wordpress install somewhere.

I realize that not everyone is a firebrand NYT writer/television personality, so the upside isn't as big for your average author, but of the journalists and writers that I know (which is a few), you're not going to get their attention for a few hundred dollars a month. When I clicked that link I expected to see tens of thousands.

Yeah. Damn. This is a smart reply, a healthy criticism, and I think you're basically exactly right. I know, for a fact, that this is true:

you're not going to get their attention for a few hundred dollars a month.

We have been struggling to get writers to pay attention when the payouts are still so small. (It's a "chicken and egg problem" that we think we know how to solve, but that's a different topic altogether.)

There's a better way for me to make the case that we're creating something that will have a monumental impact on the entire digital writing/reading industry by paying writers better. It involves unit economics.

On average, people are paying ~$10 to read on Readup. But also, on average, people don't read more than 1-2 articles every few days. Voracious readers are able to read ~4-5 articles per day. Lots of people read 3-4 articles/month.

In the end, if people are paying $1 or even just .25 to read an article online, it's a lot of money for the writers.

Does that paint a different picture?

And yeah, this is really important:

I realize that not everyone is a firebrand NYT writer/television personality

Glad you mentioned that. All things considered, I do think that Substack and Medium are moving the ball forward. But I also think that it's impossible to deny that this problem is far from solved. Writers - especially non-famous ones - aren't making enough money. That's why we plan to keep working on this.

this is a really cool thing!! but how do you get around existing pay structures — eg, any online media source has contracts with the brands/ads they're hosting, saying that the existence of the article implies a certain potential for profit for the brand — plus subscription costs to even access some articles, like NYT or WSJ. so how has this app circumvented all that??

like, how is it possible to just say "we are not going to let you make any ad revenue on this click, but we're sending % of our own profits to the author of the article!" which is an awesome thing, and would definitely make the internet a better place for readers, but i just don't understand how that is actually possible!

Excellent question!!

The vast majority of online articles and stories are available completely for free. A small percentage have some kind of "soft" paywall (x number of reads/month, "give us your email to keep reading," clear your cookies, etc). And a very small number of articles are blocked behind a hard paywall.

There's no law that says that we can't strip ads from articles. There are tons of laws that say that we can't steal content, and we most certainly NEVER do that. (Think of Readup as a browser. The articles never hit our servers. We just show them.)

Basically, Readup is like Pocket combined with an extremely powerful ad-blocker, that functions as a browser and includes a fully-loaded social/sharing platform (with fully transparent algorithms). All of this is completely legal, we're just the first people to bring it all together.

For the record, Facebook/Reddit/Twitter/Google could do this, easily, but they don't want to because if they do they'll lose money.

There's no law that says that we can't strip ads from articles. There are tons of laws that say that we can't steal content, and we most certainly NEVER do that. (Think of Readup as a browser. The articles never hit our servers. We just show them.)

But you're charging for this. What makes you different than any of the ad filters out there that strip 99% of the ads from the websites? Why would I use your product over Ad Block Plus?

Why would I use your product over Ad Block Plus?

because Ad Block Plus doesn't

(1) help you find great articles

(2) connect you with other people who are reading the same great articles that you're reading

(3) show you your money going to the writers you read

We have been working on this for several years, but we've only been "in business" for a few months. As soon as we shipped Readup Subscriptions, we were pleased to see that people loved to be able to see their money going to the writers. It's not just a technical aspect of the business, it's a feature.

This is an over-simplification, but maybe helpful: We're building Spotify for reading. But unlike Spotify, Readup isn't a black box. On Spotify, you have no clue how much of your money goes to Spotify and how much goes to the musicians. On Readup, you watch your money -- down to the penny -- go to the writers. Readup only takes a very small 5% cut.

Is that helpful?

This seems to me to be a very good idea worth every ounce of effort being put into it.

I skimmed through the read-tracking technology -- I'm impressed with your thoroughness!

There were two things in the back of my mind as I read through this -

1) I wonder if, eventually over time, there won't be some sort of selection pressure for articles that are easy to just read through - less deep content, easier for people to actually "read through" (as determined by the algorithm), which might mean that many lower quality articles get pushed to the top? Imagine well-written articles that nonetheless use more technical concepts that lose many partway through, getting little "reading-love" lol.

​

2) As with anything else internet-wise, we may expect bots to arise that can crawl through articles, activating the algorithm and pushing certain targeted articles to the top. This would fall under the "cheating" you refer to, but in the case of numerous bots it could conceivably be used to defeat the desired purpose I guess.

Ahhh. I LOVE both of these questions!

(1) Maybe. We often ask ourselves: What even is a "good" article? Some answers: A good article gets you in the flow state. A good article makes you forget everything else in your life, while you're reading it. A good article holds your attention. Good articles are NOT unnecessarily taxing on the reader. Good writers write to the readers. Ultimately: A good book is one that you finish. Similarly: A good article is one that you finish.

To be perfectly honest, it might be true that Readup favors "easier" reading (for exactly the reason you mentioned) but is that such a bad thing? And, for the record, I personally see seriously dense (sometimes technical) stuff at the top of the algorithm pretty much every single day.

(2) We used to think and talk a lot about cheating - Human cheating and bot cheating. Overall, it has proven to be WAY less of an issue than we anticipated.

I think cheating will become way more of an issue as your platform gains an audience. It won't scale linearly, you'll have very little and then you'll have a bot nightmare if you're not trying to anticipate and stay ahead. On the bright side, your pay wall will make that strategy of information manipulation costly - something to think about in the context of free trials (maybe exclude trial users from influencing you article prioritizatiom algorithm).

something to think about in the context of free trials (maybe exclude trial users from influencing you article prioritizatiom algorithm).

excellent point here.

Indeed. Very interesting point. Something I hadn't thought of. And I'm pretty sure that Jeff/Thor didn't consider this either.

Either way, we'll still probably launch Free Trials with those free reads influencing the algo and we'll see what happens.

This needs more upvotes

Agreed.

Why is this any different than using an ad blocker (like Brave browser) for online reading... Or an e reader app and e booker's for book reading? I never see ads with my setups

First of all: I love the name PositivePizza420.

I answered this question in a few other spots, but I think the best one is here.

If it's already possible to read anything you want online without having to fight through paywalls and ads, I missed the memo.

Three questions for you: (1) Are you a developer? (2) What's your setup? (3) What kind of stuff do you read online?

I'm a tad confused with the end goal here. It seems the plan is to essentially route (see: rip) an article to your application and compel the user to read through said article. Once the user has read through the article, your app will pay the publisher of the article... Somehow? This is very unclear on how this is done without partnering with the publisher.

Won't this lessen the revenue of publishers? The only people that would use this service are people that would read many articles, and for your company to make a profit, the payment for each of these would have to be pretty minimal. If it's not minimal, than this feels like the MoviePass problem. This application is either predatory or unsustainable, and I'd like to hear how it is otherwise.

I'm a tad confused with the end goal here.

The end goal is simple: We want to build a reading app that makes you feel really good when you use it. Something that enhances your life. Reading enhances your life. Non-reading (or: mindless browsing/scanning) does not. Non-reading makes you feel empty, bored, and useless.

It seems the plan is to essentially route (see: rip) an article to your application and compel the user to read through said article.

"Compel" is a strange word. Reading is fun. And interesting. We're not trying to "compel" anybody to do anything, but we've heard from thousands of people that reading is a great use of time online. People want to read.

Once the user has read through the article, your app will pay the publisher of the article... Somehow? This is very unclear on how this is done without partnering with the publisher.

This answers that.

Won't this lessen the revenue of publishers?

No. Readup is creating a new (and much better) revenue stream for publishers.

The only people that would use this service are people that would read many articles

That's not true. Most of our readers just read a few articles per week.

this feels like the MoviePass problem.

The MoviePass problem is that MoviePass wasn't a good business. They had tons of money from Silicon Valley investors so they gave away tons of free movie passes. When the money ran out (and there was no good business model) they failed.

This application is either predatory or unsustainable, and I'd like to hear how it is otherwise.

So you speak on behalf of the publishers? I think I understand the point you're trying to make, and I'm willing to go in deeper, but I also have a question for you: Who speaks on behalf of the hundreds of millions of human beings who want to use the internet to read interesting articles and stories? We're focused on those people. Right now, those people are having to navigate a complete dumpster fire in order to just get to article text. Reading requires focus. The internet destroys focus.

So you're revolutionizing the internet by making people pay for content in order to avoid ads? YouTube beat you to it.

You have to pay to read on Readup. That's how we make money.

We move most of that money to the writers and publishers and we keep a small cut.

Yes: Ads make the internet free. They also destroy your ability to actually read. That's the problem that Readup solves.

I edited my original comment after actually reading the link. Sorry!

No problemo! Thanks for engaging!

I'm currently using Pocket for similar results. What does this app offers that Pocket can't do?

Great question.

Pocket and Readup both enable you to save articles for later, but that's where the comparison ends.

Readup also (1) incentivizes you to actually read stuff and (2) dramatically improves the reading experience (no ads, no distractions, no paywalls).

Pocket is cool, but I think that Readup has bigger ambitions. Before Readup, I was a big-time Pocket user. The problem was that I just ended up saving a bajillion articles and I never got around to actually reading any of them.

Plus, Pocket doesn't have a community. Pocket isn't a network or community. Pocket is a utility.

Is that a satisfactory answer? It's a really great question and I'm happy to dig deeper if you're interested.

Wait, you keep describing the application as a browser AND a community. Is it meant to just be an effective manner to read articles, or is it supposed to encourage users to interact with other users about the articles? If it's the latter, how is that being handled? If it's through a comment section, how is that different from most websites that already have that on their articles?

Is it meant to just be an effective manner to read articles, or is it supposed to encourage users to interact with other users about the articles?

Both.

If it's the latter, how is that being handled? If it's through a comment section, how is that different from most websites that already have that on their articles?

Because on Readup it's not possible to comment on articles that you haven't actually read. (Our technology is quite intelligent. It can determine whether or not you actually read it by evaluating your scroll behavior and speed.) If you haven't read an article, you can't comment on it.

Everywhere else on the web, most comment sections are just a bunch of people talking about the headline.

When do you expect to go bankrupt?

Never

If this tech is any good it will simply be bought up by Facebook or some other demon from below and used for evil. Convince me otherwise?

Fuck Facebook. I stopped using all Facebook-owned technology in 2015 and it was one of the best decisions of my life. It has a lot to do with why I was motivated to start this company in the first place.

HOWEVER, I'm not going to insult your intelligence by saying something like "We'll never get bought by one of these huge evil companies!" because - c'mon - that's obviously bullshit too. (How's that for honesty?)

What I can promise is that (1) this is a conversation we have internally and openly with our community all the time and (2) I think we're going to make many more billions of dollars on our own. If we get bought by a company like Facebook they'll just kill us.

Twitter recently bought Scroll. As far as I'm concerned, that means that Scroll is no longer a part of the conversation about fixing reading online. One thing to know about Readup: Our customers are human beings - the readers who read on Readup. (Not advertisers!) That's a competitive advantage that enables us to offer a better experience.

facebook wants to make ad revenue. this app removes all potential for ad revenue.

Exactly.

It's a different model.

YOU (reader) pay US (Readup). In exchange, we'll treat you like a human being. At the very least we'll treat you like the customer because that's exactly what you are.

I mega-loathe the advertising industry with the passionate fury of a thousand suns, so what can I do to help?

Get the app.

Buy a subscription.

Read an article every single day.

Tell everyone you know about Readup.

So we can’t have the experience of reading an article and seeing the comment section without paying?

SOON! Our #1 most requested feature right now is "Free Trial" and Thor - /u/thorgxyz - is making that a reality. Should go live within a few weeks.

This almost sounds to good to be true. I hope you succeed!

Are you planning to make this app like a spotify but for writers and writing?

Do you, or do you plan to, have scientific articles in your app?

Will this app ever be compatible with reading devices such as kindle?

This almost sounds to good to be true. I hope you succeed!

We hear this all the time. Thank you!

Are you planning to make this app like a spotify but for writers and writing?

YES! Exactly. Publicly, I tend to avoid comparing Readup to Spotify because Spotify isn't transparent. You have no idea how much of your money goes to the musicians.

Do you, or do you plan to, have scientific articles in your app?

Yep! In fact, science articles are already very popular on Readup.

Will this app ever be compatible with reading devices such as kindle?

Definitely yes. Soon!

General internet scam advice, if something sounds to good to be true, it usually is.

That being said, this mostly sounds like an ad blocker that you pay for.

Ha! Touché! I think you're absolutely right about this:

General internet scam advice, if something sounds to good to be true, it usually is.

Anyway, we think that we're way more than just a paid ad-blocker. However, it's humbling and helpful to hear that many people are only understanding that part of our business. We've got some work to do on the marketing side of things!

Can you make it so I never have to see another commercial /ad ever again? That would be great.

Agreed!! It would be great!!

I'm not sure if you're being serious, but my first thought was: FUCK YEAH! LET'S DO IT! IT'S FINALLY TIME!!

A few years ago, the concept of an "ad and commercial free future" was something that most people (including technology investors) just laughed about. Now, it seems that more people are starting to more seriously examine that possibility. I personally believe that it's very pessimistic to think that we can't build a future without ads, and I think that it's a very noble (and fascinating) thing to work on.

Readup can't kill ads altogether (like the billboard you see on your drive to work) but we can - and already do! - completely obliterate ads from online reading.

I hacked an old iPad to be a Readup-only device. So there are absolutely no other apps on the device at all, and thus, no ads or commercials at all. I have had some experiences with this device that are legit borderline-spiritual - reading while drinking coffee in the morning, reading while in the park. It's just one ad-free device (and it doesn't do anything) but it's a start!

We need more ad-free devices, ad-free platforms, and companies that commit to going ad-free. Progress is incremental, but it's happening.

Thank you for the reply.

I wouldn't mind ads so much if they weren't so mind numbingly stupid and if there was far, far fewer of them.

I understand that businesses need to get word about their products out, but what it has come to now is just beyond the pale ridiculous.

Agreed.

I hate when ads insult my intelligence.

And I really really hate when ads insult my intelligence and still work on me.

In the end, this is going to have a lot to do with how we, as consumers, choose to interact with brands and products. It's an exciting (and scary) question: Can we conquer our worst impulses and instincts? There's a lot of data that says no. (Unhealthy food is still a big business.) But there's also a lot of data that says yes. (Healthy food is also a big business, and growing!)

Agreed.

I hate when ads insult my intelligence.

And I really really hate when ads insult my intelligence and still work on me.

In the end, this is going to have a lot to do with how we, as consumers, choose to interact with brands and products. It's an exciting (and scary) question: Can we conquer our worst impulses and instincts? There's a lot of data that says no. (Unhealthy food is still a big business.) But there's also a lot of data that says yes. (Healthy food is also a big business, and growing!)

Need a tech writer? Lol

Maybe. Hit me up: [email protected]

To jeff camera,

Has anyone ever said to bring the camera over?

Is it not the coolest last name ever? I've been jealous of it since we were in Kindergarten.

do you realize the irony of your mission statement in regards to disrupting the reading flow of this site with a glorified advertisement for your company or do you just have 0 shame?

Nope.

Sometimes it feels like Readup itself is one giant irony (and we love engaging those ironies!) but your comment makes no sense. What were you reading that I interrupted?

"disrupting the reading flow of this site"

LOL. You weren't reading anything. You were bouncing around on Reddit, scanning over tiny little bits of mostly junky info & ads, of which we were one.

Have you thought of integrating a web3 token like r/KinFoundation within your business model?

Great question! Yes, but I'm not familiar with Kin Foundation.

Jeff and I are both BTC enthusiasts. I'm the only person I know that has 100% of my life savings in BTC.

Readup uses reading as a "proof-of-work." Complete reads are the "currency" that runs the platform. But we don't see any need to put that on a ledger or tokenize it. One day, maybe. It's definitely a fun (and strategic) thing to think about.

Sorry if that's only a partial answer. A complete answer would require several hours because it's such a beefy question!

Why there is so little diversity on your promo picture? Only one brown man and one light brown woman? Where is all the color palette of skin colors? Where are the trans people(in all colors)? Why there is only one animal? People need diversity in animals too!

What promo picture are you talking about?

If you have feedback about our marketing, I'd love to hear it. I realize that the AMA format requires you to put posts in the form of questions, but I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say, so I invite you to just say it straight.