3 ms·
> Showing partial content then asking for payment to read the rest seems like a dishonest tactic, and it kind of is. How is that dishonest? The alternative wou
by morgante 11y ago
> Showing partial content then asking for payment to read the rest seems like a dishonest tactic, and it kind of is.
How is that dishonest? The alternative would be far worse (demanding payment without a preview of what you're paying for).
The problem with posting paywalled content isn't posting paywalled content. It's the entitled people who can't even be bothered to use well-known workarounds and instead completely derail discussions on political grounds.
- krapp 11y ago>The alternative would be far worse (demanding payment without a preview of what you're paying for). "dishonest" may be too strong, perhaps just misleading - paywalled articles are often designed to appear as free articles. With a proper preview the reader would know as soon as they arrive that they will be expected to pay to read. I understand why sites prefer to hook you with partial content first, but that practice can appear deceptive. >The problem with posting paywalled content isn't posting paywalled content. It's the entitled people who can't even be bothered to use well-known workarounds and instead completely derail discussions on political grounds. I agree with you there - no one can post content from Wired anymore without someone starting a thread about the paywall. If you're not willing to read the article you should just not participate in the discussion about it.