If you're appealing to some higher-level philosophical ideals, then that should be both identified and supported by argument. There's no real argument here, esp

If you're appealing to some higher-level philosophical ideals, then that should be both identified and supported by argument. There's no real argument here, especially one that acknowledges the autonomy of the individual gatekeepers who possess the information you want, or acknowledgement that it costs them money to create such information that you wish to consume. It's a bit like saying 'education ought to be free, food ought to be free, health care ought to be free, and housing ought to be free.' Ok sure, that sounds lovely, but how? And if you method of how is simply stealing and cheating, well, then that's not so lovely, is it? I doubt the scale that you suggest (especially the newsletter argument, which is typically free to sign up, rather than the monthly subscription that this site is really getting around), and if that was the case, then perhaps the solution is to find a better funding and browsing model that appeals to all rather than saying the solution is to circumvent against the information providers wishes. There have been various attempts so far from Apple News, Flipboard, Brave's browser, and briefly Google's micro-transactions for news, and we probably need more innovation in this space versus less. Would you have made such an argument previously at the magazine stand? That no one could possibly buy all the magazines to get all the information? Just because Google's index and search is free doesn't mean the rest of the world ought to be.