3 ms·

> I think in terms of the internet, you get what you pay for. I'm coming round to this perspective. After years of reading "free" news sources I decided to exp

by Veen 8y ago

> I think in terms of the internet, you get what you pay for. I'm coming round to this perspective. After years of reading "free" news sources I decided to experiment with paid sources. I subscribed to the Times (UK newspaper) and the Economist. The difference in content-quality and design is immense. I particularly like the Times's website compared to the Guardian and other free online newspapers. As an example, the Times publishes stories in daily editions, much like a traditional newspaper. They may be updated throughout the day, but, as a paywalled publication, there is no pressure on it to publish a constant stream of hot takes and low-grade commentary (as you find in The Guardian) throughout the day to get eyeballs on adverts.

Mindwipe 8y ago
You're kidding right? The Times is nothing but poorly researched clickbait or got take opinion columns preying to the bosses of its readership. I think you can find high quality paywall content (the FT for example), but yeesh, those are very, very bad examples.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Veen 8y ago
  > poorly researched clickbait or got take opinion columns Sounds more like the Guardian than the Times. Why would the Times need to publish clickbait? Its articles are behind a paywall and it doesn't have advertising?
  - Mindwipe 8y ago
    It certainly does have advertising - it's comment is written for the print version, and readers can still read two articles a month (with advertising) without subscribing. It has the ill researched bigotry from the likes of Janice Turner whipping up populist hatred of sexual minorities, and a series of impossibly bad technology reporting echoing the lobby lines of the current government based on nothing more than a vendetta against online companies for business reasons.
0x445442 8y ago
It was apparent to me a long time ago that most of the web was just a massive direct marketing platform. At the moment I pay for email and news but I expect the set of information and resources I pay for in the future will expand. However, paying for news doesn't really solve the "fake news" issue as fake is in the eye of the beholder.

by Veen 8y ago

Mindwipe 8y ago

You're kidding right? The Times is nothing but poorly researched clickbait or got take opinion columns preying to the bosses of its readership. I think you can find high quality paywall content (the FT for example), but yeesh, those are very, very bad examples.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Veen 8y ago
> poorly researched clickbait or got take opinion columns Sounds more like the Guardian than the Times. Why would the Times need to publish clickbait? Its articles are behind a paywall and it doesn't have advertising?
- Mindwipe 8y ago
  It certainly does have advertising - it's comment is written for the print version, and readers can still read two articles a month (with advertising) without subscribing. It has the ill researched bigotry from the likes of Janice Turner whipping up populist hatred of sexual minorities, and a series of impossibly bad technology reporting echoing the lobby lines of the current government based on nothing more than a vendetta against online companies for business reasons.

0x445442 8y ago

It was apparent to me a long time ago that most of the web was just a massive direct marketing platform. At the moment I pay for email and news but I expect the set of information and resources I pay for in the future will expand. However, paying for news doesn't really solve the "fake news" issue as fake is in the eye of the beholder.