4 ms·

Well, paywalls are just an insanely bad concept when coupled with a site such as HN. I will not start a subscription on a random site because it was linked on

by tjoff 9y ago

Well, paywalls are just an insanely bad concept when coupled with a site such as HN. I will not start a subscription on a random site because it was linked on HN. I'm most certainly not even part of their target group. And even if I was, reading 1 article a month on 100 different sites is equally insane. (that said, I don't bypass the paywall, I just don't read it) Personally I'm also not fond of the idea to pay money so that they can track me better, but I know I'm in minority there. We need better ways to pay for content. Preferably one which rewards good content. Today everything is clickbait and the idea to pay for clickbait is extremely off putting to me.

kristianc 9y ago
> We need better ways to pay for content. Preferably one which rewards good content. Today everything is clickbait and the idea to pay for clickbait is extremely off putting to me. That's garbage. The NYT isn't clickbait. Neither is WaPo, BBC, NPR, Reuters, AFP and many others. If you want more tech focused content there is The Information, Stratechery, Pando Daily. For nearly all of those there is an easy way to pay, or someone else is paying on your behalf.
- tjoff 9y ago
  When I wrote that I mostly had in mind sites in my country (Sweden). Sure, a foreign subscription is a good idea for world news but you still need ones that specifically covers local issues.
- dang 9y ago
  > That's garbage. This breaks the HN guideline against name-calling in arguments. Could you please (re-)read and follow them? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Your comment would be fine without that bit.
matt4077 9y ago
“Everything is clickbait” only proves that the concept has lost all meaning, not that journalism has somehow changed for the worse. Look how much of the conversation is driven by traditional media outlets. If people really believe we can lose all that and still have a functioning civil society with an informed citizenry, I fear for the future.
- tjoff 9y ago
  It most certainly has changed for the worse. Because with everything clickbait there is no reason to focus on content since articles without it "sell" just as well. And since good content doesn't bring money anymore why bother? As a user it becomes much harder to find good content, which reduces the usefulness and desire to read and continue the subscription.
  - mijamo 9y ago
    I disagree strongly. Shocking headings were already common in the 1800s. If anything the quality and diversity has gone up in the last years.
    - tjoff 9y ago
      Sure, front page headlines has always been subject to this. But with the internet everything is the front page, and stories only get promoted based on how clickbaity they are. I can look past the top headline, this is several orders of magnitude worse. Paywalls made this much worse, now every single link has to sell you a subscription. Which is bad enough if you don't pay for a subscription but absolutely devastating if you actually paid for content that only serves as bait for people that don't.
    - gepi79 9y ago
      Thanks to the internet.

by tjoff 9y ago

kristianc 9y ago

> We need better ways to pay for content. Preferably one which rewards good content. Today everything is clickbait and the idea to pay for clickbait is extremely off putting to me. That's garbage. The NYT isn't clickbait. Neither is WaPo, BBC, NPR, Reuters, AFP and many others. If you want more tech focused content there is The Information, Stratechery, Pando Daily. For nearly all of those there is an easy way to pay, or someone else is paying on your behalf.

tjoff 9y ago
When I wrote that I mostly had in mind sites in my country (Sweden). Sure, a foreign subscription is a good idea for world news but you still need ones that specifically covers local issues.
dang 9y ago
> That's garbage. This breaks the HN guideline against name-calling in arguments. Could you please (re-)read and follow them? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Your comment would be fine without that bit.

matt4077 9y ago

“Everything is clickbait” only proves that the concept has lost all meaning, not that journalism has somehow changed for the worse. Look how much of the conversation is driven by traditional media outlets. If people really believe we can lose all that and still have a functioning civil society with an informed citizenry, I fear for the future.

tjoff 9y ago
It most certainly has changed for the worse. Because with everything clickbait there is no reason to focus on content since articles without it "sell" just as well. And since good content doesn't bring money anymore why bother? As a user it becomes much harder to find good content, which reduces the usefulness and desire to read and continue the subscription.
- mijamo 9y ago
  I disagree strongly. Shocking headings were already common in the 1800s. If anything the quality and diversity has gone up in the last years.
  - tjoff 9y ago
    Sure, front page headlines has always been subject to this. But with the internet everything is the front page, and stories only get promoted based on how clickbaity they are. I can look past the top headline, this is several orders of magnitude worse. Paywalls made this much worse, now every single link has to sell you a subscription. Which is bad enough if you don't pay for a subscription but absolutely devastating if you actually paid for content that only serves as bait for people that don't.
  - gepi79 9y ago
    Thanks to the internet.