3 ms·
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 ha
by 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 agoStill, 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.