4 ms·

Why should we discourage articles behind a paywall (with or without a workaround) in the first place? What's so bad about a website that relies on subscriptions

Why should we discourage articles behind a paywall (with or without a workaround) in the first place? What's so bad about a website that relies on subscriptions instead of ads?

Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
I don't want to imply that journalists getting paid for their work is a bad thing. However, WSJ is doing it wrong. I recently paid the Guardian instead. They have a noticable but unobtrusive (and dismissable) banner asking you to pay, rather than a paywall. I've never seen them complain about my ad blocker (if they even have ads, I don't know), and they let you pay any amount you wish. It's just paywalls as a particular implementation of monetizing news that I'm opposed to.
- dtnewman 10y ago
  Still, most people won't pay if it's optional. I wonder what percentage of readers pay for the Guardian's news. In the old days, you could pickup a newspaper and set it back down, but if you wanted any sort of convenience, you had to pay for it. It's tough for a newspaper these days...
  - cerebellum42 10y ago
    >Still, most people won't pay if it's optional. I'd say the same applies if it isn't optional. They just go somewhere else, mostly.
sheepmullet 10y ago
The quality of the discussion ends up a lot lower because most people don't read the article?
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  This. It's bad enough when people comment after reading no more than the headline (guilty!) but it's much worse when most people are commenting without getting the full picture.
  - jaredklewis 10y ago
    Seems the problem is then with user behavior, not the link. There is no rule that people have to comment on articles they can't read. Seems backwards to forbid interested people from linking to and discussing an article in earnest just to reduce posting from bullshitters.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Seems the problem is then with user behavior, not the link Perhaps in a sense, but many things that are discouraged by the rules (including paywalled articles without effective workarounds) are discouraged because they are observed to contribute to undesirable user behavior to a degree that responsibility g tomthe individual undesirable behaviors reactively is an inadequate remedy.
    - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
      I never said anything should be forbidden, it's just a problem that happens from time to time that becomes somewhat larger when the subject of the discussion is largely inaccessible.
- jasonkostempski 10y ago
  The discussion ends up focusing on if HN should allow paywall links.
thinkMOAR 10y ago
because they use HN as their ad space. Not posting news, just teasers which imho are ads; almost as annoying as the cloudflare blog posts.
mstolpm 10y ago
The problem with paywalled links for a forum that is all about discussing the linked content is simple: If most users aren't able to read the content, the discussion either can't happen or is worthless. Workarounds help, but if they aren't available (or not working any longer), the content isn't accessible for a lot of the international HN community. So, in this case I'd personally prefer another (non-paywalled) source for the topic or just no HN entry at all if no alternative is available.
- krapp 10y ago
  It's not the case that most users aren't able to read the content. Some may find the content blocked by their government, or some similar entity, but many users simply refuse to read it, and insist that no one else be afforded the opportunity to do so. It makes little sense to ban discussions among the set of users who can and are willing to read the content.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
johnward 10y ago
There is nothing wrong with them trying to monetize. However, we should not link to content that a majority of the users cannot read.
yen223 10y ago
Because deep down, when we talk about freedom of the press, we really meant free as in beer. No one likes paying for stuff. We will happily pretend that journalists don't need to eat, as long as we never have to see another paywall again.
kawera 10y ago
Do subscribers get an ad-free experience?
ensignavenger 10y ago
Besides the excellent reasons already posted here, I would also point out that many, perhaps most, Wall Street Journal articles posted here tend to be the same story that other outlets are covering, often better, and usually the WSJ articles has nothing to recommend it over these other, free outlets. So by blocking WSJ submissions, it would encourage submitters to use an alternate source for the topic.

Why should we discourage articles behind a paywall (with or without a workaround) in the first place? What's so bad about a website that relies on subscriptions instead of ads?

Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago

I don't want to imply that journalists getting paid for their work is a bad thing. However, WSJ is doing it wrong. I recently paid the Guardian instead. They have a noticable but unobtrusive (and dismissable) banner asking you to pay, rather than a paywall. I've never seen them complain about my ad blocker (if they even have ads, I don't know), and they let you pay any amount you wish. It's just paywalls as a particular implementation of monetizing news that I'm opposed to.

dtnewman 10y ago
Still, most people won't pay if it's optional. I wonder what percentage of readers pay for the Guardian's news. In the old days, you could pickup a newspaper and set it back down, but if you wanted any sort of convenience, you had to pay for it. It's tough for a newspaper these days...
- cerebellum42 10y ago
  >Still, most people won't pay if it's optional. I'd say the same applies if it isn't optional. They just go somewhere else, mostly.

sheepmullet 10y ago

The quality of the discussion ends up a lot lower because most people don't read the article?

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
This. It's bad enough when people comment after reading no more than the headline (guilty!) but it's much worse when most people are commenting without getting the full picture.
- jaredklewis 10y ago
  Seems the problem is then with user behavior, not the link. There is no rule that people have to comment on articles they can't read. Seems backwards to forbid interested people from linking to and discussing an article in earnest just to reduce posting from bullshitters.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Seems the problem is then with user behavior, not the link Perhaps in a sense, but many things that are discouraged by the rules (including paywalled articles without effective workarounds) are discouraged because they are observed to contribute to undesirable user behavior to a degree that responsibility g tomthe individual undesirable behaviors reactively is an inadequate remedy.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    I never said anything should be forbidden, it's just a problem that happens from time to time that becomes somewhat larger when the subject of the discussion is largely inaccessible.
jasonkostempski 10y ago
The discussion ends up focusing on if HN should allow paywall links.

thinkMOAR 10y ago

because they use HN as their ad space. Not posting news, just teasers which imho are ads; almost as annoying as the cloudflare blog posts.

mstolpm 10y ago

The problem with paywalled links for a forum that is all about discussing the linked content is simple: If most users aren't able to read the content, the discussion either can't happen or is worthless. Workarounds help, but if they aren't available (or not working any longer), the content isn't accessible for a lot of the international HN community. So, in this case I'd personally prefer another (non-paywalled) source for the topic or just no HN entry at all if no alternative is available.

krapp 10y ago
It's not the case that most users aren't able to read the content. Some may find the content blocked by their government, or some similar entity, but many users simply refuse to read it, and insist that no one else be afforded the opportunity to do so. It makes little sense to ban discussions among the set of users who can and are willing to read the content.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

johnward 10y ago

There is nothing wrong with them trying to monetize. However, we should not link to content that a majority of the users cannot read.

yen223 10y ago

Because deep down, when we talk about freedom of the press, we really meant free as in beer. No one likes paying for stuff. We will happily pretend that journalists don't need to eat, as long as we never have to see another paywall again.

kawera 10y ago

Do subscribers get an ad-free experience?

ensignavenger 10y ago

Besides the excellent reasons already posted here, I would also point out that many, perhaps most, Wall Street Journal articles posted here tend to be the same story that other outlets are covering, often better, and usually the WSJ articles has nothing to recommend it over these other, free outlets. So by blocking WSJ submissions, it would encourage submitters to use an alternate source for the topic.