4 ms·

Why is it always Medium that's blamed for this but not mainstream news websites? I'm pretty sure I've been paywalled by sites like NYT yet people keep posting

Why is it always Medium that's blamed for this but not mainstream news websites? I'm pretty sure I've been paywalled by sites like NYT yet people keep posting links to them.

jordigh 7y ago
Because Medium used to promise it would never do this. https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/03/the-long-complicated-and-extremely-frustrating-history-of-medium-2012-present/ https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/03/the-long-complicated-and-e...
- ravenstine 7y ago
  That's what people get when they take promises of any kind seriously. I'm not excusing Medium, but at the same time I'm not going to hold some kind of false expectation over their head.
  - jordigh 7y ago
    Oh, but we should hold it over their head. We very much should. Cynicism only hurts us and leaves us with a poorer way to communicate. Cynicism benefits Medium.
    - munmaek 7y ago
      Err, what? Just host your own blog. Problem solved.
ComputerGuru 7y ago
Because Medium doesn’t author anything. It’s as if NYT consisted of nothing but “letters to the editor” (without an editor and not in response to anything that was previously published, because they would be publishing nothing in the equivalent scenario) and then decided to put up a paywall. There are countless free (and even ad-free) text-only hosting options available. Medium provides nothing of value to me as a consumer. It doesn’t even aggregates the content, people selectively post it to Medium themselves! I say this as someone that pays for about a dozen online newspaper/magazine subscriptions but will never pay a penny to access a site like Medium or Scribd or Quora or any other site that does nothing but make money off being the middle man. Anyway, it’s all moot as Medium will inevitably shutter or pivot. Their model is dead, the only reason people chose to post to Medium is because it offered some views. If those views are killed off by requiring a paywall, then Medium itself becomes defunct.
- ravenstine 7y ago
  > Medium provides nothing of value to me as a consumer. The value is that it's providing a platform to authors who want a platform where they know they'll get readers. I personally don't choose to use Medium anymore, but it's very easy to get people to read your content on there. In the past I've used places like Wordpress, Blogger, my own webpages, etc., and it took a lot more effort to get people to see your content. Whereas on Medium, it didn't take long to get people to look at my content. Few things I wrote went into a black hole. > I say this as someone that pays for about a dozen online newspaper/magazine subscriptions but will never pay a penny to access a site like Medium or Scribd or Quora or any other site that does nothing but make money off being the middle man. They make money by being a platform to voices you might not otherwise hear because newspapers and magazines pick and choose a small set of authors to write most of their content. If that's not your cup of tea, then it's not your cup of tea. I choose not to use Medium as an author, but I understand why people choose to publish on it and why some people would choose to pay for it. > Anyway, it’s all moot as Medium will inevitably shutter or pivot. Like every other business conceivably? > If those views are killed off by requiring a paywall, then Medium itself becomes defunct. Is that actually happening?
  - reaperducer 7y ago
    The value is that it's providing a platform to authors who want a platform where they know they'll get readers That's providing value to the authors, not the readers.
    - ravenstine 7y ago
      How are you supposed to read anything if _mediums_ don't exist? That's the value Medium provides to readers, and clearly Medium has a lot of reach, flawed their platform may be. It's not mind-blowing, but there it is.
      - geodel 7y ago
        > How are you supposed to read anything if _mediums_ don't exist? Author's own blog or site. If they do not want to do it that's fine. They can chose Medium I can chose to not read.

Why is it always Medium that's blamed for this but not mainstream news websites? I'm pretty sure I've been paywalled by sites like NYT yet people keep posting links to them.

jordigh 7y ago

Because Medium used to promise it would never do this. https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/03/the-long-complicated-and-extremely-frustrating-history-of-medium-2012-present/ https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/03/the-long-complicated-and-e...

ravenstine 7y ago
That's what people get when they take promises of any kind seriously. I'm not excusing Medium, but at the same time I'm not going to hold some kind of false expectation over their head.
- jordigh 7y ago
  Oh, but we should hold it over their head. We very much should. Cynicism only hurts us and leaves us with a poorer way to communicate. Cynicism benefits Medium.
  - munmaek 7y ago
    Err, what? Just host your own blog. Problem solved.

ComputerGuru 7y ago

Because Medium doesn’t author anything. It’s as if NYT consisted of nothing but “letters to the editor” (without an editor and not in response to anything that was previously published, because they would be publishing nothing in the equivalent scenario) and then decided to put up a paywall. There are countless free (and even ad-free) text-only hosting options available. Medium provides nothing of value to me as a consumer. It doesn’t even aggregates the content, people selectively post it to Medium themselves! I say this as someone that pays for about a dozen online newspaper/magazine subscriptions but will never pay a penny to access a site like Medium or Scribd or Quora or any other site that does nothing but make money off being the middle man. Anyway, it’s all moot as Medium will inevitably shutter or pivot. Their model is dead, the only reason people chose to post to Medium is because it offered some views. If those views are killed off by requiring a paywall, then Medium itself becomes defunct.

ravenstine 7y ago
> Medium provides nothing of value to me as a consumer. The value is that it's providing a platform to authors who want a platform where they know they'll get readers. I personally don't choose to use Medium anymore, but it's very easy to get people to read your content on there. In the past I've used places like Wordpress, Blogger, my own webpages, etc., and it took a lot more effort to get people to see your content. Whereas on Medium, it didn't take long to get people to look at my content. Few things I wrote went into a black hole. > I say this as someone that pays for about a dozen online newspaper/magazine subscriptions but will never pay a penny to access a site like Medium or Scribd or Quora or any other site that does nothing but make money off being the middle man. They make money by being a platform to voices you might not otherwise hear because newspapers and magazines pick and choose a small set of authors to write most of their content. If that's not your cup of tea, then it's not your cup of tea. I choose not to use Medium as an author, but I understand why people choose to publish on it and why some people would choose to pay for it. > Anyway, it’s all moot as Medium will inevitably shutter or pivot. Like every other business conceivably? > If those views are killed off by requiring a paywall, then Medium itself becomes defunct. Is that actually happening?
- reaperducer 7y ago
  The value is that it's providing a platform to authors who want a platform where they know they'll get readers That's providing value to the authors, not the readers.
  - ravenstine 7y ago
    How are you supposed to read anything if _mediums_ don't exist? That's the value Medium provides to readers, and clearly Medium has a lot of reach, flawed their platform may be. It's not mind-blowing, but there it is.
    - geodel 7y ago
      > How are you supposed to read anything if _mediums_ don't exist? Author's own blog or site. If they do not want to do it that's fine. They can chose Medium I can chose to not read.