3 ms·

Dear HN. Please don't post pay-walled content. Not to HN. Not to anywhere. The companies that paywall their content are relying on their own distribution tactic

Dear HN. Please don't post pay-walled content. Not to HN. Not to anywhere. The companies that paywall their content are relying on their own distribution tactics and they only pollute sites designed for sharing content (like HN).

the_third_wave 2y ago
Here's a non-paywalled link: https://www.dailywire.com/news/one-person-dies-dozens-are-injured-after-international-flight-hits-severe-turbulence https://www.dailywire.com/news/one-person-dies-dozens-are-in... Better?
- Intermernet 2y ago
  Well, other than it being from the Daily Wire, it's at least readable. Why post something that can't be read without a subscription? With the Daily Wire I can at least read something and filter for the known conservative bias, and use ad-block to remove the copious inline ads. With Bloomberg, I get one paragraph. It's a practically useless link to share, unless you're promoting Bloomberg subscriptions.
  - donohoe 2y ago
    Maybe over time a small set of people would subscribe if they saw good stories coming from a particular news source. Maybe not.
    - Intermernet 2y ago
      How would I know it was a good story if I have to pay to read it?
    - darkclouds 2y ago
      [dead]
    - Brian_K_White 2y ago
      What do I care about Bloomberg or any other publisher getting a few subscriptions over time? Is that the reason HN exists and the reason I came here? I don't wish them ill, but did I come to HN because I have a goal to grow some web sites subscriber base? Their business model is their problem. Their plight, however valid, does not change the fact that it's inconsiderate to post a link that everyone can not read. Even a monetarily free site that requires nothing but a registration is thoughtless unless that is the true source of the topic. I don't even like twitter links but sometimes that IS the story is that someone tweeted something, or published something there, so it's reasonable or unavoidable in those cases.
donohoe 2y ago
Dear HN. Please support journalism. Bloomberg may not be the best example, but there are many news organizations that rely on subscriptions in order to pay their editorial staff. News costs money produce, and ads only do so much.
- Intermernet 2y ago
  It's not the place of news aggregators (especially crowd-sourced ones) to cater to media outlets. It's the other way around. These companies aren't publishing news out of some moral code, they're commercial entities. I can get most breaking news from the general dispersion of information on the net. I can read various primary sources on pretty much anything that happens, with more reliable factuality, from a small bunch of people who aren't monetizing the information. If you're a journalist who actually provides a unique perspective, and has an insightful analysis of what's going on, then you deserve money. If you're just collating a bunch of information from other, freely available sources, and then spinning some click-bait / appeal to the masses for engagement story on top, you deserve something very different to money. If you're actively promoting and profiting off the latter style of news distribution, you deserve something different again. Ads are a completely different beast that deserves to die. Every time this debate comes up it seems like people want to argue for the industry they feel kicks them in the teeth the least. Independent journalism exists (across the entire socio-political spectrum). Find some, preferably spanning a wide gamut of opinion, and support it. Even if you don't agree with it. It's better than supporting either the lazy, corporate regurgitation of freely available information which defines most large press organizations, or the monetization and manipulation of people that defines the advertising industry.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- apantel 2y ago
  What costs money is mostly aggregating, packaging, and selling news. How many media establishments are actually the first to report on things? Most media establishments are just repackaging and selling stories that have already hit. Something happens in the world, there’s a Twitterstorm starting with people at ground zero of the event — that’s the actual “news”. Then the media companies all scramble to package and sell the story of that event to their subscribers. And in fact that whole song and dance is mostly about selling the subscriber base to their advertisers and “trusted third parties”.

the_third_wave 2y ago

Here's a non-paywalled link: https://www.dailywire.com/news/one-person-dies-dozens-are-injured-after-international-flight-hits-severe-turbulence https://www.dailywire.com/news/one-person-dies-dozens-are-in... Better?

Intermernet 2y ago
Well, other than it being from the Daily Wire, it's at least readable. Why post something that can't be read without a subscription? With the Daily Wire I can at least read something and filter for the known conservative bias, and use ad-block to remove the copious inline ads. With Bloomberg, I get one paragraph. It's a practically useless link to share, unless you're promoting Bloomberg subscriptions.
- donohoe 2y ago
  Maybe over time a small set of people would subscribe if they saw good stories coming from a particular news source. Maybe not.
  - Intermernet 2y ago
    How would I know it was a good story if I have to pay to read it?
  - darkclouds 2y ago
    [dead]
  - Brian_K_White 2y ago
    What do I care about Bloomberg or any other publisher getting a few subscriptions over time? Is that the reason HN exists and the reason I came here? I don't wish them ill, but did I come to HN because I have a goal to grow some web sites subscriber base? Their business model is their problem. Their plight, however valid, does not change the fact that it's inconsiderate to post a link that everyone can not read. Even a monetarily free site that requires nothing but a registration is thoughtless unless that is the true source of the topic. I don't even like twitter links but sometimes that IS the story is that someone tweeted something, or published something there, so it's reasonable or unavoidable in those cases.

donohoe 2y ago

Dear HN. Please support journalism. Bloomberg may not be the best example, but there are many news organizations that rely on subscriptions in order to pay their editorial staff. News costs money produce, and ads only do so much.

Intermernet 2y ago
It's not the place of news aggregators (especially crowd-sourced ones) to cater to media outlets. It's the other way around. These companies aren't publishing news out of some moral code, they're commercial entities. I can get most breaking news from the general dispersion of information on the net. I can read various primary sources on pretty much anything that happens, with more reliable factuality, from a small bunch of people who aren't monetizing the information. If you're a journalist who actually provides a unique perspective, and has an insightful analysis of what's going on, then you deserve money. If you're just collating a bunch of information from other, freely available sources, and then spinning some click-bait / appeal to the masses for engagement story on top, you deserve something very different to money. If you're actively promoting and profiting off the latter style of news distribution, you deserve something different again. Ads are a completely different beast that deserves to die. Every time this debate comes up it seems like people want to argue for the industry they feel kicks them in the teeth the least. Independent journalism exists (across the entire socio-political spectrum). Find some, preferably spanning a wide gamut of opinion, and support it. Even if you don't agree with it. It's better than supporting either the lazy, corporate regurgitation of freely available information which defines most large press organizations, or the monetization and manipulation of people that defines the advertising industry.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
apantel 2y ago
What costs money is mostly aggregating, packaging, and selling news. How many media establishments are actually the first to report on things? Most media establishments are just repackaging and selling stories that have already hit. Something happens in the world, there’s a Twitterstorm starting with people at ground zero of the event — that’s the actual “news”. Then the media companies all scramble to package and sell the story of that event to their subscribers. And in fact that whole song and dance is mostly about selling the subscriber base to their advertisers and “trusted third parties”.