6 ms·

They mostly just want to survive... But in this case, they specifically want to allow you read maybe a dozen articles per month for free, but also (see above)

They mostly just want to survive... But in this case, they specifically want to allow you read maybe a dozen articles per month for free, but also (see above) to eat.

giornogiovanna 8y ago
Then implement technological measures to make sure that this is the case. At the very least, don't just make data freely available to the user and expect them not to read it, just because you visually hid it! And if you're serving non-paywall pages to Google bots, that's kind of against Google's policy, isn't it?
- mike22223333 8y ago
  Not any more. There were changes.
monochromatic 8y ago
Their business model has been broken for years. It’s not incumbent on me to help them survive.
- shaki-dora 8y ago
  Yes, but considering you seem to be keen on reading their content: have you considered that their survival may, just possibly, be in your interest?
  - pedrocr 8y ago
    That's a great discussion to be had anywhere but on an HN thread about how those same organizations are trying to create a precedent for limiting the kind of software you can choose to run on your own computer. These organizations are making the issue harder and harder for themselves by consistently arguing for insane concessions from society and other companies after they were caught napping during the biggest technological revolution in their business since the printing press. We should definitely have discussions on how to have a healthy press in the digital age but that should never include putting up with bullshit like this
  - zcid 8y ago
    If he felt that way, he would probably have a subscription. I will reiterate what several other posters have said: it's up to publications like WSJ to ensure their content isn't available to unauthorized users. If they're sending content out, they should not be upset that it's being consumed.
  - pessimizer 8y ago
    I've read stormfront threads, too. Additionally, it just seems incoherent to me to pay for things that I read; I pay for things that I want other people to read.
timbit42 8y ago
Then they should get real jobs.
tomp 8y ago
Criminals also just want to survive. That doesn't make their immoral business model legitimate.
- Veen 8y ago
  Criminals don't perform a useful service for society. Journalists do. Journalism is flawed, but flawed journalism is better than no journalism.
  - the8472 8y ago
    That's assuming that laws are the perfect arbiter of what is useful and what is not. Some useful and moral activities are or used to be criminal acts.
    - Veen 8y ago
      How is that remotely relevant to the topic under discussion? I mean, it's true that laws are sometimes unethical or mistaken. But that has nothing to do with whether journalism is useful and worth protecting.
    - Koshkin 8y ago
      The purpose of the law is not to determine what is useful and what isn’t. People can decide that for themselves.
  - pessimizer 8y ago
    You make a good case for state-supported journalism, not for individual respect of paywalls.
  - Mirioron 8y ago
    >but flawed journalism is better than no journalism. I would disagree. Flawed journalism means things like mixing in lies in their news stories, mixing in opinion pieces into news etc. That kind of stuff can do more harm than good.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago

They mostly just want to survive... But in this case, they specifically want to allow you read maybe a dozen articles per month for free, but also (see above) to eat.

giornogiovanna 8y ago

Then implement technological measures to make sure that this is the case. At the very least, don't just make data freely available to the user and expect them not to read it, just because you visually hid it! And if you're serving non-paywall pages to Google bots, that's kind of against Google's policy, isn't it?

mike22223333 8y ago
Not any more. There were changes.

monochromatic 8y ago

Their business model has been broken for years. It’s not incumbent on me to help them survive.

shaki-dora 8y ago
Yes, but considering you seem to be keen on reading their content: have you considered that their survival may, just possibly, be in your interest?
- pedrocr 8y ago
  That's a great discussion to be had anywhere but on an HN thread about how those same organizations are trying to create a precedent for limiting the kind of software you can choose to run on your own computer. These organizations are making the issue harder and harder for themselves by consistently arguing for insane concessions from society and other companies after they were caught napping during the biggest technological revolution in their business since the printing press. We should definitely have discussions on how to have a healthy press in the digital age but that should never include putting up with bullshit like this
- zcid 8y ago
  If he felt that way, he would probably have a subscription. I will reiterate what several other posters have said: it's up to publications like WSJ to ensure their content isn't available to unauthorized users. If they're sending content out, they should not be upset that it's being consumed.
- pessimizer 8y ago
  I've read stormfront threads, too. Additionally, it just seems incoherent to me to pay for things that I read; I pay for things that I want other people to read.

timbit42 8y ago

Then they should get real jobs.

tomp 8y ago

Criminals also just want to survive. That doesn't make their immoral business model legitimate.

Veen 8y ago
Criminals don't perform a useful service for society. Journalists do. Journalism is flawed, but flawed journalism is better than no journalism.
- the8472 8y ago
  That's assuming that laws are the perfect arbiter of what is useful and what is not. Some useful and moral activities are or used to be criminal acts.
  - Veen 8y ago
    How is that remotely relevant to the topic under discussion? I mean, it's true that laws are sometimes unethical or mistaken. But that has nothing to do with whether journalism is useful and worth protecting.
  - Koshkin 8y ago
    The purpose of the law is not to determine what is useful and what isn’t. People can decide that for themselves.
- pessimizer 8y ago
  You make a good case for state-supported journalism, not for individual respect of paywalls.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  >but flawed journalism is better than no journalism. I would disagree. Flawed journalism means things like mixing in lies in their news stories, mixing in opinion pieces into news etc. That kind of stuff can do more harm than good.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago