3 ms·

Why the hostility?

jchw 8y ago
I feel it is warranted. To me, paywalled journalism feels hostile. I don't want an internet where every link I click wants me to buy a new subscription. It's the same reason I don't pay for TV anymore. And I don't mean I'm pirating it, I just don't consume it. If this is the only way to save journalism then I'm guessing regardless of people's ambitions it's probably doomed anyways. I mean, there has been some success, but seriously, how many monthly subscriptions do I need? I pay for Creative Suite, Jetbrains Toolbox, YouTube, Amazon, multiple Patreons, a few VPS providers, Mullvad, and so many other things. Monetary value aside, I just can't manage to have more subscriptions, less one for every major publication just so I can click on links and not get paywalled constantly. I don't read from these publications regularly at all. The day every link on the net wants it's own subscription is the day I completely stop bothering with reading entirely.
- dlivingston 8y ago
  I agree completely regarding the overwhelmingness of online subscriptions. Personally, I'm interested in seeing how Apple's News+ works out, as that's the best of both worlds (a single subscription + nominal fee journo support). Edit: out of curiosity, why do you pay for YouTube Red? I don't really see the value in it
  - jchw 8y ago
    I basically just pay for things I use a lot. With YouTube I use the offline videos and background playback very frequently, and not having ads without adblock is nice. And yes, I concede that something more like Apple News would be much better. Still, I fear for a future where every last bit of content is behind a subscription paywall. The freemium model and ads in general get a lot of well-deserved flak, but they do at least make things more accessible. I find it fascinating how different the opinion on HN regarding paywalls is when it comes to scientific journals versus news publications. Like yeah, the money is ostensibly going to the right person with news publication paywalls. But a lot of arguments about paywalls hinge around how it gates knowledge and information, and to the end user, it really isn't any different than if your ISP charged you $5/mo for Wikipedia access. I realize this comparison will make people upset, but to the average user? Really is the same thing. All in all, I shouldn't be so irrationally angry over paywalls, but there are days when I come across 3 or 4 links that I can't read, and I just pass over it, remembering the past when people could discuss almost any article online regardless of how much free cash they have to pay for subscriptions.

Why the hostility?

jchw 8y ago

I feel it is warranted. To me, paywalled journalism feels hostile. I don't want an internet where every link I click wants me to buy a new subscription. It's the same reason I don't pay for TV anymore. And I don't mean I'm pirating it, I just don't consume it. If this is the only way to save journalism then I'm guessing regardless of people's ambitions it's probably doomed anyways. I mean, there has been some success, but seriously, how many monthly subscriptions do I need? I pay for Creative Suite, Jetbrains Toolbox, YouTube, Amazon, multiple Patreons, a few VPS providers, Mullvad, and so many other things. Monetary value aside, I just can't manage to have more subscriptions, less one for every major publication just so I can click on links and not get paywalled constantly. I don't read from these publications regularly at all. The day every link on the net wants it's own subscription is the day I completely stop bothering with reading entirely.

dlivingston 8y ago
I agree completely regarding the overwhelmingness of online subscriptions. Personally, I'm interested in seeing how Apple's News+ works out, as that's the best of both worlds (a single subscription + nominal fee journo support). Edit: out of curiosity, why do you pay for YouTube Red? I don't really see the value in it
- jchw 8y ago
  I basically just pay for things I use a lot. With YouTube I use the offline videos and background playback very frequently, and not having ads without adblock is nice. And yes, I concede that something more like Apple News would be much better. Still, I fear for a future where every last bit of content is behind a subscription paywall. The freemium model and ads in general get a lot of well-deserved flak, but they do at least make things more accessible. I find it fascinating how different the opinion on HN regarding paywalls is when it comes to scientific journals versus news publications. Like yeah, the money is ostensibly going to the right person with news publication paywalls. But a lot of arguments about paywalls hinge around how it gates knowledge and information, and to the end user, it really isn't any different than if your ISP charged you $5/mo for Wikipedia access. I realize this comparison will make people upset, but to the average user? Really is the same thing. All in all, I shouldn't be so irrationally angry over paywalls, but there are days when I come across 3 or 4 links that I can't read, and I just pass over it, remembering the past when people could discuss almost any article online regardless of how much free cash they have to pay for subscriptions.