10 ms·

Not even about the bits/bytes/data to me. My eyeballs are not being loaned to you; my senses/attention is not for sale. I'm perfectly fine with paywalls - tha

Not even about the bits/bytes/data to me. My eyeballs are not being loaned to you; my senses/attention is not for sale. I'm perfectly fine with paywalls - that's the 'correct' approach as far as I'm concerned. You can decide to conceal the information you know; if it's valuable and nonexcludable (usually isn't), then hey, you have a sale. But if you don't, don't expect your deals with third parties to hold up on some promise you made to them about how I browse.

matt4077 10y ago
> if it's valuable and nonexcludable (usually isn't)... That right there is the problem, though. You are right that most information is "non excludable" (if that actually is a word). But that doesn't mean it isn't valuable. That's an illusion, conceptually very much like clean water: almost free, but vital. The stuff the wire services collect and sell (and that everybody republishes) does cost quite a lot to produce, and it's the backbone of the news ecosystem. It's subjective value is further diminished by its anodyne voice, making it difficult to picture the actual people reporting it. Maybe the publishers do actually have a case for a new class of intellectual property protection. I'm horrified of the prospect, but within the current market dynamics, I don't see much of a future for quality journalism. Public opinion is critical of every and all publications, indiscriminately, and quick to use that as an argument for not subscribing. Wall Street may still pay for Bloomberg and the like, but Main Street doesn't see why. Maybe the NYT spent two or three million on some investigation. Once published, the information is delayed by little else than the time it takes the guy at BillingsMorningNews.com to switch a few sentences around. With regards to ad blockers, you are right in that there is nothing in the law that should stop anyone from using them. But that's not really the argument. Nor is anybody disagreeing that ad tech needs drastic changes. But fundamentally, the question is if blocking ads isn't hurting your own interests. Sure, there are many sources for the same information, usually. But the one you're reading probably has some small advantage, which is why you are using it. Once that publication folds, you have already lost something. And I'm not optimistic that the process will stop before it has drastic consequences on diversity and availability. It also sometimes needs reminding that for an individual, news often seems like a guilty pleasure. But for a society, news is vital. Without it, you can't even keep up the appearances of democracy. It's a tragedy-of-the-commons situation, obviously: blocking ads is vastly advantageous for the individual, just as fishing with the really big net is for the fisherman. But, thinking a bit broader, the question becomes: What's better – reading the news with annoying ads, or not reading the news?
- kuschku 10y ago
  Subscribing to a newspaper in paper. That's the best for everyone involved. Or you need to fund journalism with tax money, directly (NPR, PBS) or indirectly (BBC, ARD, ZDF, etc).
  - nradov 10y ago
    Paper newspapers aren't best for society as a whole when you consider the environment impact of production and distribution. Even with recycling, newsprint causes a lot of pollution. And then the distribution vehicles have to drive around every day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_paper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_paper
    - kuschku 10y ago
      With "in paper", I mean mostly that you subscribe to a daily or weekly single release. Be it paper or as e-paper on your tablet. But in either case, subscription costs are a lot more reasonable than subscribing to the website, and you get high quality content with only very few, handpicked, ads. Which also can't track you on paper or in the PDF
  - briandear 10y ago
    Find journalism with taxes? Then wouldn't it follow that those journalists would have a disincentive to serve as a check to their masters that pay them? Journalism's oldest and most important role is to serve as a watchdog over government. When they start profiting from government, they'll be less likely to be critical of it. Journalism should be supported by the free market. If people want it, they pay. If nobody wants to pay, then you either adapt or die. The really good media outlets are doing just fine (i.e. The Economist, NY Times,) those on the margins are at risk -- but that's their own fault. State supported media has the potential to turn into Pravda (for the political party from whom they garner the most support, usually leftists,) and it generally does, albeit with much more subtlety.
    - kuschku 10y ago
DocTomoe 10y ago
> if it's valuable and nonexcludable (usually isn't), then hey, you have a sale. Which means now we need to have some kind of legal, international safeguard to protect against content thieves, who copy paywalled content and publish it themselves. Everyone loses in that scenario.
- F2 10y ago
  You mean copywrite? That already exists.
- harwoodleon 10y ago
  I completely agree with the principle of being paid for my time to create content. If I choose the publish it for free, that is my choice. If I need to charge for it to feed my kids, that is my choice too.
- tripzilch 10y ago
  And we do, since 1886 (and being kept more or less up to date, ever since) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#International_copyright_treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#International_copyri... Whether this means that everyone loses ... I'm not directly disagreeing with that either (I don't like copyright/intellectual property rights in their current form at all), but let's get the facts straight first :)
ori_b 10y ago
> My eyeballs are not being loaned to you; my senses/attention is not for sale. The sites need to pay for servers somehow. Experience has proven time and time again that putting up paywalls just makes people go elsewhere.
- harwoodleon 10y ago
  Moot argument. If everyone charged for their time creating content on the internet, you would buy the best quality content. Newspapers had this model for decades, worked for them.
  - ferbivore 10y ago
    Moot argument. It stopped working for them.
    - harwoodleon 10y ago
      In what way? They are still publishing.
      - vacri 10y ago
        Plenty of newspapers have shuttered their shops, and editing quality has gone way down. It used to be that seeing a single typo in a competitor's paper was cause for jubilation. These days mistakes are everywhere. In the past couple of years the most egregious ones I've seen were 'mruder' and 'hgihway' - these words don't even pass a spell-checker.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - CM30 10y ago
    Not really. It's a change in model that the internet has created, and one that's going to be nigh impossible to undo. If everyone charged for their work, you'd be right, but it's basically impossible to end up in that situation now. Because for everyone charging money there's ten who realise they can out compete them by offering it for free (either out of the 'kindness' of their heart or funded by venture capital). It's the same situation with smartphone apps about now. Yes, it's an absolute mire of low quality, exploitative crap at the moment, but when developers try and avoid this by just charging full price (like Nintendo with Super Mario Run), they find their apps are significantly less popular/profitable than if they'd be 'freemium' all along and end up getting a virtual tongue lashing from audiences who expect 'mobile app' to equal 'free with ads/microtransactions'. Unless everyone charges money for content (which is likely happening because of business reasons) or some service genuinely manage to repair the media's reputation enough people will pay for it and also offers a better, more usable product than everyone else, things aren't changing.
SamBam 10y ago
> My eyeballs are not being loaned to you; my senses/attention is not for sale. That fine-sounding in theory, but it seems to ignore the fact that your attention has been for sale for as long as billboards, or, heck, carnival barkers have been around. It's great that we can use technology to un-render ads that have been delivered to us via the internet, so I fully support ad blockers, but let's not pretend that we have some innate, natural Right to never hear a sales-pitch.
- Retra 10y ago
  Yeah, but those billboards and carnival barkers are standing on someone else's property. They're not taking up space on the screen in front of me, which I personally own and administer. If someone wants to buy their own screens and show ads on them, it's fine by me. But you don't have any right to do it on my screens.
  - mthoms 10y ago
    The counter argument is that by visiting a website you are then on "their property", or at the very least using their resources. You went there on your own free will and can leave when you want. No one is "forcing" anything on your screen. (not saying I agree with this notion necessarily - just that your physical "property" analogy isn't very good).
    - Retra 10y ago
      Yes, and they can kick me (or any of my code) off of their property, just as I can kick them and theirs off of mine. They can refuse to accept any part of any message I send them at their wish, just as I will refuse to accept any part of any message they send me at mine.

matt4077 10y ago

> if it's valuable and nonexcludable (usually isn't)... That right there is the problem, though. You are right that most information is "non excludable" (if that actually is a word). But that doesn't mean it isn't valuable. That's an illusion, conceptually very much like clean water: almost free, but vital. The stuff the wire services collect and sell (and that everybody republishes) does cost quite a lot to produce, and it's the backbone of the news ecosystem. It's subjective value is further diminished by its anodyne voice, making it difficult to picture the actual people reporting it. Maybe the publishers do actually have a case for a new class of intellectual property protection. I'm horrified of the prospect, but within the current market dynamics, I don't see much of a future for quality journalism. Public opinion is critical of every and all publications, indiscriminately, and quick to use that as an argument for not subscribing. Wall Street may still pay for Bloomberg and the like, but Main Street doesn't see why. Maybe the NYT spent two or three million on some investigation. Once published, the information is delayed by little else than the time it takes the guy at BillingsMorningNews.com to switch a few sentences around. With regards to ad blockers, you are right in that there is nothing in the law that should stop anyone from using them. But that's not really the argument. Nor is anybody disagreeing that ad tech needs drastic changes. But fundamentally, the question is if blocking ads isn't hurting your own interests. Sure, there are many sources for the same information, usually. But the one you're reading probably has some small advantage, which is why you are using it. Once that publication folds, you have already lost something. And I'm not optimistic that the process will stop before it has drastic consequences on diversity and availability. It also sometimes needs reminding that for an individual, news often seems like a guilty pleasure. But for a society, news is vital. Without it, you can't even keep up the appearances of democracy. It's a tragedy-of-the-commons situation, obviously: blocking ads is vastly advantageous for the individual, just as fishing with the really big net is for the fisherman. But, thinking a bit broader, the question becomes: What's better – reading the news with annoying ads, or not reading the news?

kuschku 10y ago
Subscribing to a newspaper in paper. That's the best for everyone involved. Or you need to fund journalism with tax money, directly (NPR, PBS) or indirectly (BBC, ARD, ZDF, etc).
- nradov 10y ago
  Paper newspapers aren't best for society as a whole when you consider the environment impact of production and distribution. Even with recycling, newsprint causes a lot of pollution. And then the distribution vehicles have to drive around every day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_paper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_paper
  - kuschku 10y ago
    With "in paper", I mean mostly that you subscribe to a daily or weekly single release. Be it paper or as e-paper on your tablet. But in either case, subscription costs are a lot more reasonable than subscribing to the website, and you get high quality content with only very few, handpicked, ads. Which also can't track you on paper or in the PDF
- briandear 10y ago
  Find journalism with taxes? Then wouldn't it follow that those journalists would have a disincentive to serve as a check to their masters that pay them? Journalism's oldest and most important role is to serve as a watchdog over government. When they start profiting from government, they'll be less likely to be critical of it. Journalism should be supported by the free market. If people want it, they pay. If nobody wants to pay, then you either adapt or die. The really good media outlets are doing just fine (i.e. The Economist, NY Times,) those on the margins are at risk -- but that's their own fault. State supported media has the potential to turn into Pravda (for the political party from whom they garner the most support, usually leftists,) and it generally does, albeit with much more subtlety.
  - kuschku 10y ago

DocTomoe 10y ago

> if it's valuable and nonexcludable (usually isn't), then hey, you have a sale. Which means now we need to have some kind of legal, international safeguard to protect against content thieves, who copy paywalled content and publish it themselves. Everyone loses in that scenario.

F2 10y ago
You mean copywrite? That already exists.
harwoodleon 10y ago
I completely agree with the principle of being paid for my time to create content. If I choose the publish it for free, that is my choice. If I need to charge for it to feed my kids, that is my choice too.
tripzilch 10y ago
And we do, since 1886 (and being kept more or less up to date, ever since) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#International_copyright_treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#International_copyri... Whether this means that everyone loses ... I'm not directly disagreeing with that either (I don't like copyright/intellectual property rights in their current form at all), but let's get the facts straight first :)

ori_b 10y ago

> My eyeballs are not being loaned to you; my senses/attention is not for sale. The sites need to pay for servers somehow. Experience has proven time and time again that putting up paywalls just makes people go elsewhere.

harwoodleon 10y ago
Moot argument. If everyone charged for their time creating content on the internet, you would buy the best quality content. Newspapers had this model for decades, worked for them.
- ferbivore 10y ago
  Moot argument. It stopped working for them.
  - harwoodleon 10y ago
    In what way? They are still publishing.
    - vacri 10y ago
      Plenty of newspapers have shuttered their shops, and editing quality has gone way down. It used to be that seeing a single typo in a competitor's paper was cause for jubilation. These days mistakes are everywhere. In the past couple of years the most egregious ones I've seen were 'mruder' and 'hgihway' - these words don't even pass a spell-checker.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- CM30 10y ago
  Not really. It's a change in model that the internet has created, and one that's going to be nigh impossible to undo. If everyone charged for their work, you'd be right, but it's basically impossible to end up in that situation now. Because for everyone charging money there's ten who realise they can out compete them by offering it for free (either out of the 'kindness' of their heart or funded by venture capital). It's the same situation with smartphone apps about now. Yes, it's an absolute mire of low quality, exploitative crap at the moment, but when developers try and avoid this by just charging full price (like Nintendo with Super Mario Run), they find their apps are significantly less popular/profitable than if they'd be 'freemium' all along and end up getting a virtual tongue lashing from audiences who expect 'mobile app' to equal 'free with ads/microtransactions'. Unless everyone charges money for content (which is likely happening because of business reasons) or some service genuinely manage to repair the media's reputation enough people will pay for it and also offers a better, more usable product than everyone else, things aren't changing.

SamBam 10y ago

> My eyeballs are not being loaned to you; my senses/attention is not for sale. That fine-sounding in theory, but it seems to ignore the fact that your attention has been for sale for as long as billboards, or, heck, carnival barkers have been around. It's great that we can use technology to un-render ads that have been delivered to us via the internet, so I fully support ad blockers, but let's not pretend that we have some innate, natural Right to never hear a sales-pitch.

Retra 10y ago
Yeah, but those billboards and carnival barkers are standing on someone else's property. They're not taking up space on the screen in front of me, which I personally own and administer. If someone wants to buy their own screens and show ads on them, it's fine by me. But you don't have any right to do it on my screens.
- mthoms 10y ago
  The counter argument is that by visiting a website you are then on "their property", or at the very least using their resources. You went there on your own free will and can leave when you want. No one is "forcing" anything on your screen. (not saying I agree with this notion necessarily - just that your physical "property" analogy isn't very good).
  - Retra 10y ago
    Yes, and they can kick me (or any of my code) off of their property, just as I can kick them and theirs off of mine. They can refuse to accept any part of any message I send them at their wish, just as I will refuse to accept any part of any message they send me at mine.