> unless you find that all of those free sources including BBC, AP, etc are so bad that they provide negative value and just waste your time then it's in your b

> unless you find that all of those free sources including BBC, AP, etc are so bad that they provide negative value and just waste your time then it's in your best interest (infinite ratio) to try to get by with those free sources So, like the GP said, that's "a broken definition of 'value'" on the face! Wouldn't you at least concede that if some sources do in fact provide negative value, it might be preferred to connect those sources that do consistently provide value, directly with even some small reward (like a subscription, maybe a per-article cost) in exchange for consistently providing positive value? How do content creators make a return on their investments, is it meant to be indirectly, through advertising, or is it some other way I haven't thought of that will recoup their costs) This is all nonsense anyway and I don't believe any of it. Information has to be free, and it's either all free or none of it is. The paywall is wrong, if it seeks to prevent us from sharing information then it will fail, and Google, a part of the system of freedom, is properly set up to route around the damage of censorship inflicted by asserters of copyrights. The paywalls that don't provide free information, moved down or were delisted in the rankings like I think should happen. If growth in your business model depends on broadening the subscriber-ship and thus reach of your own information, but also on limiting the proliferation of your own information, then it is wrong too. I don't know what this means for news media companies that have to turn a profit for their shareholders; I guess I can safely say their concerns are not my concerns. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch another episode of Black Mirror.