4 ms·

Avoid giving clicks to companies like the NYT that are working to kill the open web. http://archive.is/i60kZ http://archive.is/i60kZ

by kauffj 7y ago

owlninja 7y ago
Or trying to fund their operation? This article seems free anyways
- buboard 7y ago
  Free the first time or sth. Everybody's trying to fund their operations, i don't see why paywalls aren't considered the spam (that they are)
  - reaperducer 7y ago
    Because there are people who believe in supporting journalism and understand that real journalism isn't cheap? Like a lot of things in life, you get what you pay for.
    - buboard 7y ago
      There are people who support kayaking, that doesn't mean that Gmail should allow kayak fan spam in my inbox.
      - acdha 7y ago
        How is that relevant to the NYT charging for their work? You always have the option of not reading it if you don’t want to.
        buboard 7y ago
        Google considers all kinds of hidden or caged content as spam, and will delist those sites, but they make an exception for paywalls.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        hombre_fatal 7y ago
        If your issue is that NYT can get its entire article indexed even though people will hit a paywall when they go to view it, I can see what you're saying. But you have to balance these concerns with what's practical. After all, a search engine is supposed to help people find things. If an NYT article actually answers your search query, I don't think the greater good is for Google to not show you that result. I don't think that's what most people would want, either. I feel the same way about Google hypothetically only indexing the part of the article that is shown above the paywall fold. What if the rest of the article can answer your search query? I don't think you're better off not knowing such an article exists. There are only trade-offs. The other things that Google bans are more obviously deceptive with few upsides to be found for the end-user, like cloaking a malicious website. I don't think you could enumerate the other sorts of things that Google blocks and compare them honestly to NYT's paywall, but I'd be curious to hear you build that case.
        dangerface 7y ago
        The article is just an opinion piece on Bill Gates opinion, it really adds nothing of value, no investigative journalism, no fact checking. I argue that the only reason people are interested in this article is because of Bill Gates opinion not the ny times. I think search results for the original opinion would be much more relevant than a random persons opinion of the opinion. The opinion of some one else's opinion is not worth money, if ny times considers that as quality journalism I think it says a lot about the quality of their journalism.
        acdha 7y ago
        So you're upset that the NYT ran an opinion piece in the opinion section?
- dangerface 7y ago
  I got a paywall, its not free.
- breakbread 7y ago
  It's free with NoScript installed.
  - nbanks 7y ago
    Thanks! I didn't know how to get by this paywall until now.
obituary_latte 7y ago
FYI: archive.is doesn’t resolve for people using cloudflare dns.
- 1337biz 7y ago
  What's the reason for using cloud flare dns?
  - davidmurdoch 7y ago
    Fast and much more private than your ISP or local coffee shop router. Still doesn't stop these middlemen from snooping on browsing destinations, but it's a step closer.
- dangerface 7y ago
  Thank you I have been wondering where archive.is went
- pcnix 7y ago
  This was the case a while ago, but this has been fixed, I am able to resolve archive.is to the correct ip using 1.1.1.1
  - obituary_latte 7y ago
    Hmm, you sure about that? You might be getting results from a fallback DNS server. _____________________________ | ~ @ TRUHQWSOSX3 (muser) | => nslookup archive.is 1.1.1.1 ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached _____________________________ | ~ @ TRUHQWSOSX3 (muser) | => nslookup archive.is 8.8.8.8 Server: 8.8.8.8 Address: 8.8.8.8#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: archive.is Address: 94.16.117.236
acdha 7y ago
“Working to kill the open web”? That’s not how I would describe needing to get paid for their work.
- dangerface 7y ago
  The article is an option pice on Bill Gates opinion. Bill Gates opinion is the only reason any one is interested in the article, and he gave his opinion for nothing because thats what opinions are worth. Giving your opinion is free, doesn't require any investigation, doesn't require any fact checking, doesn't require any journalism. To put it bluntly nytimes has added no value to Bill Gates opinion, they have done no work, total value of their contributions is 0 they don't need paid for nothing.
  - acdha 7y ago
    It's an opinion piece in the opinion section. You are, of course, always free not to read it and presumably their advertisers and subscribers will react by giving them less money if many people share your view. What I don't get is why you or the “libertarian” who posted the comment I replied to think it's important to get access to someone else's work while depriving them of the expected payment — it's like complaining when a hotel asks you not to sit in their lobby.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Avoid giving clicks to companies like the NYT that are working to kill the open web. http://archive.is/i60kZ http://archive.is/i60kZ

by kauffj 7y ago

Avoid giving clicks to companies like the NYT that are working to kill the open web. http://archive.is/i60kZ http://archive.is/i60kZ

owlninja 7y ago

Or trying to fund their operation? This article seems free anyways

buboard 7y ago
Free the first time or sth. Everybody's trying to fund their operations, i don't see why paywalls aren't considered the spam (that they are)
- reaperducer 7y ago
  Because there are people who believe in supporting journalism and understand that real journalism isn't cheap? Like a lot of things in life, you get what you pay for.
  - buboard 7y ago
    There are people who support kayaking, that doesn't mean that Gmail should allow kayak fan spam in my inbox.
    - acdha 7y ago
      How is that relevant to the NYT charging for their work? You always have the option of not reading it if you don’t want to.
      - buboard 7y ago
        Google considers all kinds of hidden or caged content as spam, and will delist those sites, but they make an exception for paywalls.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        hombre_fatal 7y ago
        If your issue is that NYT can get its entire article indexed even though people will hit a paywall when they go to view it, I can see what you're saying. But you have to balance these concerns with what's practical. After all, a search engine is supposed to help people find things. If an NYT article actually answers your search query, I don't think the greater good is for Google to not show you that result. I don't think that's what most people would want, either. I feel the same way about Google hypothetically only indexing the part of the article that is shown above the paywall fold. What if the rest of the article can answer your search query? I don't think you're better off not knowing such an article exists. There are only trade-offs. The other things that Google bans are more obviously deceptive with few upsides to be found for the end-user, like cloaking a malicious website. I don't think you could enumerate the other sorts of things that Google blocks and compare them honestly to NYT's paywall, but I'd be curious to hear you build that case.
        dangerface 7y ago
        The article is just an opinion piece on Bill Gates opinion, it really adds nothing of value, no investigative journalism, no fact checking. I argue that the only reason people are interested in this article is because of Bill Gates opinion not the ny times. I think search results for the original opinion would be much more relevant than a random persons opinion of the opinion. The opinion of some one else's opinion is not worth money, if ny times considers that as quality journalism I think it says a lot about the quality of their journalism.
        acdha 7y ago
        So you're upset that the NYT ran an opinion piece in the opinion section?
dangerface 7y ago
I got a paywall, its not free.
breakbread 7y ago
It's free with NoScript installed.
- nbanks 7y ago
  Thanks! I didn't know how to get by this paywall until now.

obituary_latte 7y ago

FYI: archive.is doesn’t resolve for people using cloudflare dns.

1337biz 7y ago
What's the reason for using cloud flare dns?
- davidmurdoch 7y ago
  Fast and much more private than your ISP or local coffee shop router. Still doesn't stop these middlemen from snooping on browsing destinations, but it's a step closer.
dangerface 7y ago
Thank you I have been wondering where archive.is went
pcnix 7y ago
This was the case a while ago, but this has been fixed, I am able to resolve archive.is to the correct ip using 1.1.1.1
- obituary_latte 7y ago
  Hmm, you sure about that? You might be getting results from a fallback DNS server. _____________________________ | ~ @ TRUHQWSOSX3 (muser) | => nslookup archive.is 1.1.1.1 ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached _____________________________ | ~ @ TRUHQWSOSX3 (muser) | => nslookup archive.is 8.8.8.8 Server: 8.8.8.8 Address: 8.8.8.8#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: archive.is Address: 94.16.117.236

acdha 7y ago

“Working to kill the open web”? That’s not how I would describe needing to get paid for their work.

dangerface 7y ago
The article is an option pice on Bill Gates opinion. Bill Gates opinion is the only reason any one is interested in the article, and he gave his opinion for nothing because thats what opinions are worth. Giving your opinion is free, doesn't require any investigation, doesn't require any fact checking, doesn't require any journalism. To put it bluntly nytimes has added no value to Bill Gates opinion, they have done no work, total value of their contributions is 0 they don't need paid for nothing.
- acdha 7y ago
  It's an opinion piece in the opinion section. You are, of course, always free not to read it and presumably their advertisers and subscribers will react by giving them less money if many people share your view. What I don't get is why you or the “libertarian” who posted the comment I replied to think it's important to get access to someone else's work while depriving them of the expected payment — it's like complaining when a hotel asks you not to sit in their lobby.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]