> Sure I could have purchased a subscription to the Washington Post, but I don’t believe opinion pieces should be behind a paywall and I certainly don’t believe

> Sure I could have purchased a subscription to the Washington Post, but I don’t believe opinion pieces should be behind a paywall and I certainly don’t believe that something like Dingell’s last words should be behind a paywall. Quite cheap for a millionaire (billionaire?)! Just think about that for a second. It’s comical. Newspapers were never free. Ever. People subscribed or bought them in a vending machine or news stand. > have ceded their role as the public square to places like Twitter and Medium that remain open and free. They aren’t free. They both burn massive amounts of cash. Medium isn’t profitable and Twitter lost money for 12 years before stuffing it with ads to turn a profit. Oh and most importantly, Twitter doesn’t have to pay a single journalist or reporter! Hard for a VC to understand, but WaPo is actually concerned with making money. > But the way paywalls are implemented today stinks. Some content should never ever be put behind one. Well that’s just like your opinion, man. WaPo has been profitable under this model.