4 ms·

In any discussion about adblockers the consensus among HN readers seems to be "I'd pay if I had the option" - yet the first thing to appear on any paywalled sto

In any discussion about adblockers the consensus among HN readers seems to be "I'd pay if I had the option" - yet the first thing to appear on any paywalled story is a link to Outline.

sugarpile 8y ago
That's probably what you're looking to see. Many, me included, will never pay if there's an avenue to get it for free (regardless of legality).
ktjfi 8y ago
I wouldn't pay for journalism, not even if they put a gun to my head.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
iscrewyou 8y ago
I used to pay for NYTimes. But they have the most horrendous app. The ads freeze up the phone. Not sure if it’s the same for WSJ. But if I pay for it, then you give me ads which in turn actually degrade the experience? Yeah, that’s a unsubscribe.
TotempaaltJ 8y ago
I've started paying for NYT because it turned out to be by far my most consumed news source. There's no other source I read enough to justify paying for a monthly subscription. Something like scroll.com, blendle.com, or associated services seem like a good start at tackling this better, but there may need to be a dedicated protocol for total acceptance. Maybe something like https://www.w3.org/Payments/WG/ https://www.w3.org/Payments/WG/
whyenot 8y ago
consensus =/= unanimity It only takes one person to post the comment and a few more to upvote it. Furthermore, particularly in the case of the WSJ, there is no low cost option for reading individual stories. You either become a subscriber at the monthly rate, or you don't read anything.
crikli 8y ago
I'd pay given the right structure. Eg I'd pay fifty cents to a buck for a given article. But monthly recurring payments to several different publishers? Hard pass.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Yeah, I'm not paying 30€ to read three or four stories like these, and I have no intention of reading the WSJ outside of the few HN links I click on. I already pay monthly fees for other publications.
- gigaftp 8y ago
  50 cents is far too much. I just read that article and it was pretty much just filler.
Alterlife 8y ago
I suspect this is because the real 'consensus' is more nuanced than that.
wpietri 8y ago
It's a fair point. I pay circa $500/year for traditional journalism, plus maybe another $1000/year on Patreon for specific writers, plus assorted donations. So I'm not averse to paying. However, there are a few cases where I'm happy to skate around a paywall. A relevant one here is that I just don't read the WSJ often enough to justify a full subscription. With other places, like say HBR, I'd fall in their "N free articles per month" bucket. I expect the WSJ will eventually come around to that approach. Until then, me reading it via Outline or whatever isn't costing the WSJ any money, either directly or in would-have-subscribed-if-I-had-to revenue, so I don't feel bad about it.
zip3 8y ago
Your comment’s being downvoted says a lot, doesn’t it :) The majority of the current HN crowd mostly has strongly held, but subject to change based on circumstances, unexamined opinions, that they will defend angstily with all the debate tactics they read about on wikipedia.
dang 8y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19329211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19329211 and marked it off-topic.
gigaftp 8y ago
I would pay if there was a good option. A monthly subscription to read a single article on a public discussion forum is. To a good option.
scarejunba 8y ago
I think we all know the truth. The Revealed Preference is that people get reporting for free. The rest is rationalization. I don't think they ever intend to actually pay as much as they feel they do. Faced with the option to do so, they never do. "I would do X" has a massive list of caveats, most of which are non-intersecting with anyone elses. Don't try to run a business based on this. Flattr and Blendle tried this and are having a hard time. It's just "don't believe people will buy your product till you have the money".

In any discussion about adblockers the consensus among HN readers seems to be "I'd pay if I had the option" - yet the first thing to appear on any paywalled story is a link to Outline.

sugarpile 8y ago

That's probably what you're looking to see. Many, me included, will never pay if there's an avenue to get it for free (regardless of legality).

ktjfi 8y ago

I wouldn't pay for journalism, not even if they put a gun to my head.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

iscrewyou 8y ago

I used to pay for NYTimes. But they have the most horrendous app. The ads freeze up the phone. Not sure if it’s the same for WSJ. But if I pay for it, then you give me ads which in turn actually degrade the experience? Yeah, that’s a unsubscribe.

TotempaaltJ 8y ago

I've started paying for NYT because it turned out to be by far my most consumed news source. There's no other source I read enough to justify paying for a monthly subscription. Something like scroll.com, blendle.com, or associated services seem like a good start at tackling this better, but there may need to be a dedicated protocol for total acceptance. Maybe something like https://www.w3.org/Payments/WG/ https://www.w3.org/Payments/WG/

whyenot 8y ago

consensus =/= unanimity It only takes one person to post the comment and a few more to upvote it. Furthermore, particularly in the case of the WSJ, there is no low cost option for reading individual stories. You either become a subscriber at the monthly rate, or you don't read anything.

crikli 8y ago

I'd pay given the right structure. Eg I'd pay fifty cents to a buck for a given article. But monthly recurring payments to several different publishers? Hard pass.

icebraining 8y ago
Yeah, I'm not paying 30€ to read three or four stories like these, and I have no intention of reading the WSJ outside of the few HN links I click on. I already pay monthly fees for other publications.
gigaftp 8y ago
50 cents is far too much. I just read that article and it was pretty much just filler.

Alterlife 8y ago

I suspect this is because the real 'consensus' is more nuanced than that.

wpietri 8y ago

It's a fair point. I pay circa $500/year for traditional journalism, plus maybe another $1000/year on Patreon for specific writers, plus assorted donations. So I'm not averse to paying. However, there are a few cases where I'm happy to skate around a paywall. A relevant one here is that I just don't read the WSJ often enough to justify a full subscription. With other places, like say HBR, I'd fall in their "N free articles per month" bucket. I expect the WSJ will eventually come around to that approach. Until then, me reading it via Outline or whatever isn't costing the WSJ any money, either directly or in would-have-subscribed-if-I-had-to revenue, so I don't feel bad about it.

zip3 8y ago

Your comment’s being downvoted says a lot, doesn’t it :) The majority of the current HN crowd mostly has strongly held, but subject to change based on circumstances, unexamined opinions, that they will defend angstily with all the debate tactics they read about on wikipedia.

dang 8y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19329211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19329211 and marked it off-topic.

gigaftp 8y ago

I would pay if there was a good option. A monthly subscription to read a single article on a public discussion forum is. To a good option.

scarejunba 8y ago

I think we all know the truth. The Revealed Preference is that people get reporting for free. The rest is rationalization. I don't think they ever intend to actually pay as much as they feel they do. Faced with the option to do so, they never do. "I would do X" has a massive list of caveats, most of which are non-intersecting with anyone elses. Don't try to run a business based on this. Flattr and Blendle tried this and are having a hard time. It's just "don't believe people will buy your product till you have the money".