4 ms·

>I personally do not derive any benefits from them >I want to be able to read them Uh? Being able to read is deriving a benefit. I don't disagree that the cur

by xoa 5y ago

>I personally do not derive any benefits from them >I want to be able to read them Uh? Being able to read is deriving a benefit. I don't disagree that the current situation is a complete mess, and that subs everywhere is ridiculous. It's perfectly possible to imagine technical/business solutions that would match reasonable budget/month for news to what people read and valued. And it's also easy to see real collective action problems, incentive issues and so on that might make that impossible. All tied together with advertising, privacy, public education issues and so on as well. But claiming you derive no benefit from newspapers at all would be a stretch even if you didn't want to read them, but claiming you don't while one sentence later saying you do want to read them? That doesn't seem quite reasonable.

deadalus 5y ago
>I personally do not derive any benefits from them Any article is plastered all over the internet in hundreds of websites. Same topic, different headline. >I want to be able to read them I want to be able to read ANY of those "free non-paywalled" articles instead of the one that's paywalled. I have no loyalty to NYT, USA Today or The Blaze.
- CubsFan1060 5y ago
  So you want the news, and you don't want anyone to earn any money from spending the time to produce that news?
  - deadalus 5y ago
    I will prefer reading the same news from a website that does not paywall content. Websites pay-walling content is not the issue here. The issue is Google ranking paywalled sites higher even though the same content is available elsewhere for free. Those non pay-walled websites must also survive.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > issue is Google ranking paywalled sites higher even though the same content is available elsewhere for free It's almost like it's not the same content. Something breaking on the Times and then being summarized elsewhere are not interchangeable, which is why Google ranks its results as it does.
      - deadalus 5y ago
        I agree that if something breaks on the Times, it should be ranked higher. But 99% of the time, the news didn't break on Times or some other paywalled site. Still, Google will rank it higher - and I have to waste my time : opening it, closing it because its paywalled, open the next result and hope that it's not paywalled.

by xoa 5y ago

deadalus 5y ago

>I personally do not derive any benefits from them Any article is plastered all over the internet in hundreds of websites. Same topic, different headline. >I want to be able to read them I want to be able to read ANY of those "free non-paywalled" articles instead of the one that's paywalled. I have no loyalty to NYT, USA Today or The Blaze.

CubsFan1060 5y ago
So you want the news, and you don't want anyone to earn any money from spending the time to produce that news?
- deadalus 5y ago
  I will prefer reading the same news from a website that does not paywall content. Websites pay-walling content is not the issue here. The issue is Google ranking paywalled sites higher even though the same content is available elsewhere for free. Those non pay-walled websites must also survive.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > issue is Google ranking paywalled sites higher even though the same content is available elsewhere for free It's almost like it's not the same content. Something breaking on the Times and then being summarized elsewhere are not interchangeable, which is why Google ranks its results as it does.
    - deadalus 5y ago
      I agree that if something breaks on the Times, it should be ranked higher. But 99% of the time, the news didn't break on Times or some other paywalled site. Still, Google will rank it higher - and I have to waste my time : opening it, closing it because its paywalled, open the next result and hope that it's not paywalled.