Technically, yes. I realize I sort of contradicted myself there. Paywalls vary in terms of aggression and the nature of the content they're protecting. For ex

Technically, yes. I realize I sort of contradicted myself there. Paywalls vary in terms of aggression and the nature of the content they're protecting. For example, WSJ's paywall is extremely aggressive and the content it protects can be found from other sources for free. Most of the time you can go over to the New York Times or some other publication and get the same story for free, because NYT's paywall is a lot less aggressive. Even so, if you subscribe to either, you're still going to get a bloated page filled with stories that can probably be found elsewhere. Something like Natilus on the other hand, has a very non-aggressive paywall, it's devoid of ads and bloat, has a clean design, and the content is sufficiently niche that you'd feel like you're getting a real value for your money while supporting a unique publication to boot. So, a paywall may be idiotic depending on why and how it's deployed I suppose.