5 ms·

> will require login to read answers and have stupid pop ups like Medium does. And yet medium does not have ads , and neither does nytimes, or bloomberg wh

> will require login to read answers and have stupid pop ups like Medium does. And yet medium does not have ads , and neither does ~~nytimes~~, or bloomberg which are frequently posted here. Are login/paywalls not a cancer of the web though? It sure seems to be spreading fast. The thing is, there is a 1%-1.5% percent of GDP that businesses have been spending on advertising since forever. There is nothing wrong with using that to have a free (as in free beer) internet, and as a bonus we have one that is more pluralist too. The anti-ad hysteria will pass, but the ad spending will stay.

umeshunni 7y ago
> yet medium does not have ads They did till 2017, when they gave on up on trying to scale, fired a third of their staff and decided to pivot, complete with the customary "renewing our focus / incredible journey" blog post. https://blog.medium.com/renewing-mediums-focus-98f374a960be https://blog.medium.com/renewing-mediums-focus-98f374a960be > Nytimes Of course the NYTimes has ads. They're one of the bigger publishers on the internet https://advertising.nytimes.com/ https://advertising.nytimes.com/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/06/profits-at-the-new-york-times-show-media-dinosaurs-are-ruling-the-internet/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/06/profits-at-the-new-york-ti...
Nextgrid 7y ago
I don’t see paywalls as bad as ads. I hate them, but I understand the publisher is simply trying to sell me access to their content in a honest way, similarly to a shopkeeper asking me to pay for groceries. I hate them not because they’re paywalls per-se, but because they are asking for too much money (I don’t read any of these paywalled publications often enough to warrant a subscription, and they don’t allow me to pay per-article). Also, a lot of paywalled websites still have tons of tracking attached to them (in addition to already having your details for billing purposes) which means despite paying you still have the privacy liabilities that ads have. Also remember that NYTimes & Bloomberg produce & own the content they publish. Stack Exchange do not. Even setting aside opinions about the paywalls, I think it would be very unethical to put the content users have contributed for free behind a paywall. What I hate even more is “login walls” that aren’t even paywalls, which means they don’t make you login to make you pay, they instead want even more of your personal data (to use later for ads, or resell to someone who’ll inevitably use it for ads).
- johannes1234321 7y ago
  The issue with paywalls is that we got use to the "free" access and paywalls limit linkability/shareability: A typical newspaper article I can pass on to my family/friends. With a paywall I can't easily pass it on. Also we still have no good micropayment option. For reading a single article I don't want to have a long subscription and don't want to register with yet another payment service.
  - Nextgrid 7y ago
    Paywalled articles can embed a token allowing a certain amount of free views, so links can still be shared.

> will require login to read answers and have stupid pop ups like Medium does. And yet medium does not have ads , and neither does ~~nytimes~~, or bloomberg wh

umeshunni 7y ago

> yet medium does not have ads They did till 2017, when they gave on up on trying to scale, fired a third of their staff and decided to pivot, complete with the customary "renewing our focus / incredible journey" blog post. https://blog.medium.com/renewing-mediums-focus-98f374a960be https://blog.medium.com/renewing-mediums-focus-98f374a960be > Nytimes Of course the NYTimes has ads. They're one of the bigger publishers on the internet https://advertising.nytimes.com/ https://advertising.nytimes.com/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/06/profits-at-the-new-york-times-show-media-dinosaurs-are-ruling-the-internet/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/06/profits-at-the-new-york-ti...

Nextgrid 7y ago

I don’t see paywalls as bad as ads. I hate them, but I understand the publisher is simply trying to sell me access to their content in a honest way, similarly to a shopkeeper asking me to pay for groceries. I hate them not because they’re paywalls per-se, but because they are asking for too much money (I don’t read any of these paywalled publications often enough to warrant a subscription, and they don’t allow me to pay per-article). Also, a lot of paywalled websites still have tons of tracking attached to them (in addition to already having your details for billing purposes) which means despite paying you still have the privacy liabilities that ads have. Also remember that NYTimes & Bloomberg produce & own the content they publish. Stack Exchange do not. Even setting aside opinions about the paywalls, I think it would be very unethical to put the content users have contributed for free behind a paywall. What I hate even more is “login walls” that aren’t even paywalls, which means they don’t make you login to make you pay, they instead want even more of your personal data (to use later for ads, or resell to someone who’ll inevitably use it for ads).

johannes1234321 7y ago
The issue with paywalls is that we got use to the "free" access and paywalls limit linkability/shareability: A typical newspaper article I can pass on to my family/friends. With a paywall I can't easily pass it on. Also we still have no good micropayment option. For reading a single article I don't want to have a long subscription and don't want to register with yet another payment service.
- Nextgrid 7y ago
  Paywalled articles can embed a token allowing a certain amount of free views, so links can still be shared.