3 ms·

This is a double edge sword. We complain about too many adverts on sites, and we complain about paywalls. Without ads or paywalls, how do big sites pay for the

This is a double edge sword. We complain about too many adverts on sites, and we complain about paywalls. Without ads or paywalls, how do big sites pay for themselves? If you want quality reporting, then someone has to pay those reporters a fair wage for their skill set. As much as I'd like 'information to be free' we do not yet live in a 'Star Trek' world where money no longer has any meaning, and where people produce 'stuff' purely for the benefit of themselves and others. Until we reach that utopia (or dystopia depending on your view) you can't have your cake and eat it; It's Ads or Paywalls, pick one.

pmlnr 8y ago
When I hit a paywall, I walk away, or pay up, because that's the ethical thing to do - I do expect no tracking though, when I do pay up. Reasonable ads (fast, 1st party served) would be ok, tracking is really not. But... bots (google, etc) are allowed to get through. I understand the reasons, but then, is it really a paywall? To be honest, I won't bother with cookies and other tricks: logged in, allowed, logged out, walk away. In the end, I agree: don't bypass paywalls, the whole adblocking argument becomes invalid, if we do. Some publishers are trying to find a new way of income, and bypassing that invalidates the efforts. (EDIT: treating bots differently is wrong on so many levels. I changed the User Agent of my miniflux RSS reader to "miniflux-legacy (Googlebot for Tumblr)" from "Miniflux (https://miniflux.net)" https://miniflux.net)" because otherwise Tumblr shows GDPR cookie consent interstitial for RSS feeds. There really, really shouldn't be a separate version for bots.)
nellaby 8y ago
I agree completely in that high quality journalism requires the appropriate wage, and I detest advertising. However, playing devil's advocate, the flip side of pay walls is that you essentially remove/hide quality journalism from being used in the the argument against the poor quality, free to publish 'news' that is often referred to as 'fake news'. Just a thought.
esotericn 8y ago
Paywalls that actually work. The existing model is to treat the Internet as a magazine rack. It doesn't work that way. A user might read one article from the WSJ a month. Obviously they won't pay 5 USD for that, they'll either attempt to get around the paywall or not bother. Giving users a few free articles means that they'll just rotate around sites to get what they want. You need to charge a small amount from hit 1. Not withstanding that it's not hard to build a paywall that actually functions, just don't send the content unless you've paid. This addon relies entirely on the fact that content which has not been paid for gets sent anyway. Realistically though, the answer is that paid journalism disappears, or the Internet as we know it disappears. Increasingly lately it's looking like both will happen.
- balt_s 8y ago
  > Realistically though, the answer is that paid journalism disappears, or the Internet as we know it disappears. Increasingly lately it's looking like both will happen. Seems a touch hyperbolic. My question would be: what part of the internet depends on paid journalism and how would the disappearance of paid journalism effect e.g. buy stuff online, looking at pornography, or accessing social media?
  - esotericn 8y ago
    Please re-read my comment. I have not stated that they are dependent.
icebraining 8y ago
It's Ads or Paywalls, but it's not Paywalls or Bypass, you can choose both. Since micropayments are not here yet, and most of us can't afford subscriptions to every single site, an approach is to just choose a few you can afford, and bypass the paywalls of the rest. I know this is unacceptable to those who have a moral opposition to accessing content without accepting the rules, but to those who are just concerned about funding journalism, this approach is essentially equivalent to not bypassing paywalls. Also, there's a problem with paywalls, which is the enhanced tracking (by subscribing, you're giving them an excellent profile to attach to their analytics). Some people might therefore prefer to use a Bypasser even if they are subscribed.

pmlnr 8y ago

When I hit a paywall, I walk away, or pay up, because that's the ethical thing to do - I do expect no tracking though, when I do pay up. Reasonable ads (fast, 1st party served) would be ok, tracking is really not. But... bots (google, etc) are allowed to get through. I understand the reasons, but then, is it really a paywall? To be honest, I won't bother with cookies and other tricks: logged in, allowed, logged out, walk away. In the end, I agree: don't bypass paywalls, the whole adblocking argument becomes invalid, if we do. Some publishers are trying to find a new way of income, and bypassing that invalidates the efforts. (EDIT: treating bots differently is wrong on so many levels. I changed the User Agent of my miniflux RSS reader to "miniflux-legacy (Googlebot for Tumblr)" from "Miniflux (https://miniflux.net)" https://miniflux.net)" because otherwise Tumblr shows GDPR cookie consent interstitial for RSS feeds. There really, really shouldn't be a separate version for bots.)

nellaby 8y ago

I agree completely in that high quality journalism requires the appropriate wage, and I detest advertising. However, playing devil's advocate, the flip side of pay walls is that you essentially remove/hide quality journalism from being used in the the argument against the poor quality, free to publish 'news' that is often referred to as 'fake news'. Just a thought.

esotericn 8y ago

Paywalls that actually work. The existing model is to treat the Internet as a magazine rack. It doesn't work that way. A user might read one article from the WSJ a month. Obviously they won't pay 5 USD for that, they'll either attempt to get around the paywall or not bother. Giving users a few free articles means that they'll just rotate around sites to get what they want. You need to charge a small amount from hit 1. Not withstanding that it's not hard to build a paywall that actually functions, just don't send the content unless you've paid. This addon relies entirely on the fact that content which has not been paid for gets sent anyway. Realistically though, the answer is that paid journalism disappears, or the Internet as we know it disappears. Increasingly lately it's looking like both will happen.

balt_s 8y ago
> Realistically though, the answer is that paid journalism disappears, or the Internet as we know it disappears. Increasingly lately it's looking like both will happen. Seems a touch hyperbolic. My question would be: what part of the internet depends on paid journalism and how would the disappearance of paid journalism effect e.g. buy stuff online, looking at pornography, or accessing social media?
- esotericn 8y ago
  Please re-read my comment. I have not stated that they are dependent.

icebraining 8y ago

It's Ads or Paywalls, but it's not Paywalls or Bypass, you can choose both. Since micropayments are not here yet, and most of us can't afford subscriptions to every single site, an approach is to just choose a few you can afford, and bypass the paywalls of the rest. I know this is unacceptable to those who have a moral opposition to accessing content without accepting the rules, but to those who are just concerned about funding journalism, this approach is essentially equivalent to not bypassing paywalls. Also, there's a problem with paywalls, which is the enhanced tracking (by subscribing, you're giving them an excellent profile to attach to their analytics). Some people might therefore prefer to use a Bypasser even if they are subscribed.