4 ms·
Counterpoint: paywalls are what allow actual journalists to be on the web. If you’re not paying them, you should ask yourself why they would spend time writing
by janalsncm 6mo ago
Counterpoint: paywalls are what allow actual journalists to be on the web. If you’re not paying them, you should ask yourself why they would spend time writing something for you to read.
- boxedemp 6mo agoIn the 90s I spent many hours on IRC and newsgroups reading all kinds of wonderful, and some not so wonderful things. I even had my own website, with photos, a web log, and a guest book! None of us were paid. Sure, it wasn't as dressed up, but it was joyful and charming. Not everything is about money, and not everything needs to be done for money. On the contrary; money seems to drain the charm and joy.
- esafak 6mo agoBut you weren't a journalist trying to earn a living.
- boxedemp 6mo agoNo, I was a photographer at the time
- jarjoura 6mo agoSo, social media is your news source, same as it is today?
- boxedemp 6mo agoNope
- nsonha 6mo agoI don't think "not everything is about money" is meant for taking freebies or employing people without paying. Either pay or watch ads, which is it?
- janalsncm 6mo ago> Not everything is about money, and not everything needs to be done for money. On the contrary; money seems to drain the charm and joy. Perhaps some journalists have made the exact same argument to their landlords and at the grocery store. It probably didn’t go over very well.
- sieabahlpark 6mo ago[dead]
- boxedemp 6mo agoMaybe they have, but I would suggest against it.
- jasomill 6mo agoBecause somebody else is paying them? Public funding, indvidual donations, corporate and non-profit sponsorship all come immediately to mind. Commercial journalism could also be funded with profits from other lines of business. While shareholders might revolt if Disney started streaming World News Tonight ad and subscription free, Michael Bloomberg could remove Bloomberg News paywalls with a phone call.