4 ms·

honestly, i think that the whole situation was ridiculous to begin with. i'm as much for regulation as the next gal (probably even more so than most people on H

honestly, i think that the whole situation was ridiculous to begin with. i'm as much for regulation as the next gal (probably even more so than most people on HN judging by the comments i've read in the last few weeks since i started visiting on the regular) but in this case the government was just trying to offload it's own responsibility to the tech giants instead of actually supporting local news services

wkat4242 3y ago
It seems to be a common problem everywhere though. News services all over the world are increasingly paywalling their content. There's discussions about AI scraping it for free. The approach Australia took was somewhat unique though other countries proposed it too. But the problem does exist everywhere. I don't think paywalls are the solution either though. I'm not going to sign up for a subscription if I find an article linked on HN and can't read it. That's just nuts. Who invests in a whole news platform because of one or a handful of articles?
- Barrin92 3y ago
  I think paywalls are completely fine. It's the most normal business model there is. I want to read a newspaper, I buy a copy. That's literally how it has worked hundreds of years. Most sites let you peek or give you X articles for free, that's basically the equivalent of opening a paper and taking a look before buying it. Sure if someone links to something that's behind a paywall and I don't have access I can't participate, but that's just normal. If I'm not willing to buy a book or a movie or a netflix subscription I can't participate in a discussion about it. Probably means it wasn't valuable enough for me. Money is a good and transparent indicator of what's worth your time. Technically I think news sites would stand to benefit from making micro-transactions much easier, so that I can just shoot them 50 cents with a single click but that's about the only issue with it.
  - stkdump 3y ago
    Isn't there a fundamental difference between buying a copy of a newspaper/magazine vs buying a subscription? I would love to be able to pay a few bucks once and be able to read a number of articles for that. But that's not how it works.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    > Technically I think news sites would stand to benefit from making micro-transactions much easier, so that I can just shoot them 50 cents with a single click but that's about the only issue with it. That's the issue I mean. I won't take out a monthly subscription to a newspaper to read one article.
  - riversflow 3y ago
    > I want to read a newspaper, I buy a copy. That's literally how it has worked hundreds of years Ehh, no, not really. Based on your username, I’m your age, so in your lifetime newspapers and magazines used to be something that was commonly found in every cafe and waiting room. As a voracious reader growing up I remember this pretty vividly. Waiting rooms meant I got to read different magazines or read the Wall Street Journal! You could have a single newspaper subscription for a whole multi-generation household. You could also pretty easily find discarded or thrown out newspapers if you went to public places or even ask a stranger for a section they weren’t interested in. I got tons of back dated magazines as gifts, and loved reading them. There were options. > Money is a good and transparent indicator of what's worth your time. This is a very privileged thing to say.
  - shiroiushi 3y ago
    >I think paywalls are completely fine. It's the most normal business model there is. I want to read a newspaper, I buy a copy. Back in the days when people bought newspapers, if they wanted to read today's paper, they bought one copy at their newsstand. They didn't buy a monthly or yearly subscription. But somehow you're equating the two. Also, back in the newspaper days, newspapers weren't funded by selling copies. That money was only enough to pay for the physical paper and distribution (i.e., they were selling below cost, and the fee was only to keep people from taking papers for free and wasting them). The newspapers made all their money on advertisements. Now it's the other way around: the ads aren't worth enough any more, so they're trying to get people to subscribe to directly pay for most of the operations cost and profits. It's interesting that companies (plus those buying classified ads) back in the newspaper days were willing to pay enough to pay most of the costs of running a newspaper, when they didn't have targeted ads, tracking, etc., and were just hoping someone would see their ad next to an article.
    - krapp 3y ago
      >Back in the days when people bought newspapers, if they wanted to read today's paper, they bought one copy at their newsstand. They didn't buy a monthly or yearly subscription. But somehow you're equating the two. People absolutely did subscribe to newspapers. Who do you think paperboys were delivering to?
      - shiroiushi 3y ago
        Yes, people subscribed to newspapers. But many people didn't. Who do you think all those newsstands I mentioned before were selling to? They weren't selling subscriptions.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    > That's literally how it has worked hundreds of years. Before the invention of computers and global networks. Now copying is trivial and the value of copies tends toward $0. It only has to be created once, then it's trivial to replicate.
tiew9Vii 3y ago
I don’t think the underlying reason has anything to do with the government pressure or local news. I think this has everything to do with a very powerful media company, let’s call them News Corp, successfully lobbying for a new income stream propping up falling numbers and the lobbying not being to hard to do with open corruption in AU government. When Google/Facebook had the temporary news publishing ban, a variety of smaller news sources surfaced with a broader spectrum of content and opinions. When an agreement was made, visiting Google News was a wall of News Corp trash content and the smaller news providers had gone.

wkat4242 3y ago

It seems to be a common problem everywhere though. News services all over the world are increasingly paywalling their content. There's discussions about AI scraping it for free. The approach Australia took was somewhat unique though other countries proposed it too. But the problem does exist everywhere. I don't think paywalls are the solution either though. I'm not going to sign up for a subscription if I find an article linked on HN and can't read it. That's just nuts. Who invests in a whole news platform because of one or a handful of articles?

Barrin92 3y ago
I think paywalls are completely fine. It's the most normal business model there is. I want to read a newspaper, I buy a copy. That's literally how it has worked hundreds of years. Most sites let you peek or give you X articles for free, that's basically the equivalent of opening a paper and taking a look before buying it. Sure if someone links to something that's behind a paywall and I don't have access I can't participate, but that's just normal. If I'm not willing to buy a book or a movie or a netflix subscription I can't participate in a discussion about it. Probably means it wasn't valuable enough for me. Money is a good and transparent indicator of what's worth your time. Technically I think news sites would stand to benefit from making micro-transactions much easier, so that I can just shoot them 50 cents with a single click but that's about the only issue with it.
- stkdump 3y ago
  Isn't there a fundamental difference between buying a copy of a newspaper/magazine vs buying a subscription? I would love to be able to pay a few bucks once and be able to read a number of articles for that. But that's not how it works.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  > Technically I think news sites would stand to benefit from making micro-transactions much easier, so that I can just shoot them 50 cents with a single click but that's about the only issue with it. That's the issue I mean. I won't take out a monthly subscription to a newspaper to read one article.
- riversflow 3y ago
  > I want to read a newspaper, I buy a copy. That's literally how it has worked hundreds of years Ehh, no, not really. Based on your username, I’m your age, so in your lifetime newspapers and magazines used to be something that was commonly found in every cafe and waiting room. As a voracious reader growing up I remember this pretty vividly. Waiting rooms meant I got to read different magazines or read the Wall Street Journal! You could have a single newspaper subscription for a whole multi-generation household. You could also pretty easily find discarded or thrown out newspapers if you went to public places or even ask a stranger for a section they weren’t interested in. I got tons of back dated magazines as gifts, and loved reading them. There were options. > Money is a good and transparent indicator of what's worth your time. This is a very privileged thing to say.
- shiroiushi 3y ago
  >I think paywalls are completely fine. It's the most normal business model there is. I want to read a newspaper, I buy a copy. Back in the days when people bought newspapers, if they wanted to read today's paper, they bought one copy at their newsstand. They didn't buy a monthly or yearly subscription. But somehow you're equating the two. Also, back in the newspaper days, newspapers weren't funded by selling copies. That money was only enough to pay for the physical paper and distribution (i.e., they were selling below cost, and the fee was only to keep people from taking papers for free and wasting them). The newspapers made all their money on advertisements. Now it's the other way around: the ads aren't worth enough any more, so they're trying to get people to subscribe to directly pay for most of the operations cost and profits. It's interesting that companies (plus those buying classified ads) back in the newspaper days were willing to pay enough to pay most of the costs of running a newspaper, when they didn't have targeted ads, tracking, etc., and were just hoping someone would see their ad next to an article.
  - krapp 3y ago
    >Back in the days when people bought newspapers, if they wanted to read today's paper, they bought one copy at their newsstand. They didn't buy a monthly or yearly subscription. But somehow you're equating the two. People absolutely did subscribe to newspapers. Who do you think paperboys were delivering to?
    - shiroiushi 3y ago
      Yes, people subscribed to newspapers. But many people didn't. Who do you think all those newsstands I mentioned before were selling to? They weren't selling subscriptions.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  > That's literally how it has worked hundreds of years. Before the invention of computers and global networks. Now copying is trivial and the value of copies tends toward $0. It only has to be created once, then it's trivial to replicate.

tiew9Vii 3y ago

I don’t think the underlying reason has anything to do with the government pressure or local news. I think this has everything to do with a very powerful media company, let’s call them News Corp, successfully lobbying for a new income stream propping up falling numbers and the lobbying not being to hard to do with open corruption in AU government. When Google/Facebook had the temporary news publishing ban, a variety of smaller news sources surfaced with a broader spectrum of content and opinions. When an agreement was made, visiting Google News was a wall of News Corp trash content and the smaller news providers had gone.