3 ms·
Practical for a few sites that one might choose as private portals. Not (except for the extremely wealthy) if you use the web via its natural affordances.
by crispinb 8y ago
Practical for a few sites that one might choose as private portals. Not (except for the extremely wealthy) if you use the web via its natural affordances.
- paulcole 8y agoYeah pick and choose the ones you want to subscribe to. Doesn’t mean you’re entitled to the private portals you don’t want to pay for.
- crispinb 8y agoActually none of the standard means (ie. not stealing/hacking logins , but using archives, caches & reading services) are illegal in my jurisdiction, so I am perfectly entitled to do just that. Your approach fits an old fashioned way of reading (ie. reading primarily a small group of publications). Personally if I were to do that I'd rather buy paper. A huge part of the point of the web to me is to be able to read articles from a multiplicity of individual sources, not be corralled within a few. This affordance doesn't suit site subscriptions, which are fundamentally anti-web.
- paulcole 8y agoWell you’re not entitled to it. It’s something that’s available for sale and you’re willing to take it without paying for it because it’s technically not illegal where you live. Congrats lol.
- tomhoward 8y agoWSJ and other publications clearly welcome readers bypassing their paywall when they land via Facebook and other referrers. Are you saying it's OK to give people a hard time for reading the content for free when they enter via Facebook, but not via a different channel? It seems a fine point to make a big deal out of.
- paulcole 8y agoI try to blur the line between pedantry and shitposting.
- tomhoward 8y agoI realise I muddled my words in the previous comment, but I think you get the point. WSJ themselves are welcoming of non-paying readers from certain channels. So it seems a bit mean-spirited to hound people and liken them to criminals for doing what the publisher welcomes under only marginally different circumstances.