What people are guarding against is optimization. I don't mind paying 2 cents. I do mind paying 2 cents and then becoming marked for upsell and becoming subject to a full-fledged marketing campaign, or having some recurring 2-cent payment be changed to $20. Cognitively, I know that I am no match for the kilonerds out there trying to extract money from my wallet. So the only move is not to play.
I feel like this is solvable with smart policies and good institutional culture. One thought that I had was that a user commits to depositing say $2 to use for micro payments for the month, but doesn't actually get charged until the end of the month. This delays the pain point of spending money (thereby reducing it) but also may minimize the sensation of risks.
A colleague of mine said that this suggested what was really necessary was to allow simple prosocial spending that wasn't too in-your-face, along the lines of how it's possible for one person to rent a game server for several people. Less individual anxiety over spending, since among other things there's enough of a social script for that.
I think the issue is the magic of free and the irrationality of humans. Free creates irrational responses. People will use a lot of a thing if its free even if its bad rather than dealing with the perceived loss of paying 2 cents for something better.
So as long as no one figures out how to make micro-transactions cognitively easier than free stuff then free tech will prevail. And payment will be harvested via information and attention.
The dystopia we are building is not because we want free stuff, but because we are too lazy to make the choice about spending 2 cents.
I am trying to change that with oalrus.com but we shall see if i mange to build a large enough of a list of alpha users to give the network a chance.