5 ms·

You're right, but I'd personally be okay with the paywalled article search results not showing up, since they are ads masquerading as usable search results. If

You're right, but I'd personally be okay with the paywalled article search results not showing up, since they are ads masquerading as usable search results. If the publisher wants me to subscribe (and many do publish content worth paying for), they can reach me via normal means, versus corrupting my search results.

deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
no-name-here 1mo ago
Is the idea that you strongly prefer seeing ads instead of paywalls?
- ohyoutravel 1mo ago
  I prefer ads because pihole blocks them. Paywalls block me, and then I have to reload and ninja enter reader mode, or if I’m reading inclined, find an archive link.
  - no-name-here 1mo ago
    Wait, then how do you expect the journalists, sysadmins, server bills, etc. to get paid without paywalls and ads?
    - mionhe 1mo ago
      I think this short exchange highlights the problem really well. Most people are uninterested in paying for those services, in part because the internet has trained them that information is free and in part because of fairly extreme polarization in opinions that seems to be everywhere. Arguing that people should pay for the information they consume now is well and good, but that information was something the news companies were giving away for free not that many years ago, reinforcing the idea that information should be free. If there going to make money long term, they're going to have to find a new way to monetize. People are actively blocking the ads and don't want to pay for yet another subscription to content they don't access that often.
      - no-name-here 1mo ago
        > news companies were giving away for free not that many years ago Haven't either ads or paywalls/subscriptions always been the primary way that news companies paid for journalists/sysadmins/servers, etc? What was the funding source 'not that many years ago' if not ads or paywalls/subscriptions? > Arguing that people should pay for the information they consume now is well and good Is arguing such a thing "well and good"? I'm not complaining, but my GP comment merely asking how the other user expected the sites he wants to get content from will pay their costs (as they said ads and paywalls/subscriptions were out) got downvoted - I'm not even sure that goes as far as arguing that people should help pay for content that they want to receive.
        ImPostingOnHN 1mo ago
        > my GP comment merely asking how the other user expected the sites he wants to get content from In most cases, I am not particular about which site I read a syndicated government quote on, so "sites I want to get content from" isn't an accurate description of the use case. The use case is more "If I search for information, and a site shows up in the results claiming to have it, but when I am baited in, the content switches to an advertisement which I cannot bypass without paying: then I do not want that site to show up in my search results anymore".
        no-name-here 1mo ago
        1. Doesn't that just bring us back to the questions that were explicitly raised in the parent/GP comments, such as if you don't want paywalls or subscriptions, then does that mean that you strongly prefer viewing ads (so that the servers, people, etc get paid)? 2. "read a syndicated government quote" - actually, maybe this is the more important thing - I would strongly recommend that you change your news sources so that you are not solely consuming just whatever the government says - instead, switch to news sites that actually employ (and pay) real journalists, editors, etc to not just report what the government is saying, but also to report on the majority of news that the government isn't talking about, and even if it's a topic that the government talks about, to also report what's happening on the ground, to compare government actions to historical precedents, etc etc etc. There are even sites out there that will evaluate a wide variety of news sources based on everything from right/left leaning, to reliability. If you need any help finding some, please let me know. 3. > "sites I want to get content from" isn't an accurate description of the use case If I can't convince you to switch your sources to sources that employee real journalists, editors, etc (instead of simply regurgitating government claims), then I guess the accurate description for your case in particular would "sites that you want to just hear government claims repeated from"? (Although I do hope that I can convince you to switch away from your current use case.)
cosmic_cheese 1mo ago
Right. I don’t mind paying when the value is clear and I feel like my time has been respected, and paywalled link showing up in search violates the second of those two. In most of the circumstances when those show up in my search I’m looking for information for immediate use and I am not going whip out a credit card. If I run into a paywall, I’m immediately hitting the back button and moving on to the next result, so it’s better if they just never show up in search at all.
- bitpush 1mo ago
  This sounds a bit odd to me. When I'm hungry, I dont run to McDonald's and expect to be fed for free. I whip out my card, pay for the items, patiently wait for the food to be arrive and then eat. You could very well argue that why are you making me wait for my food when I'm hungry. What gives?
  - natios 1mo ago
    i think the crux here is you can’t get the food for free next door like you can get with information
  - cosmic_cheese 1mo ago
    The sibling reply has the right idea. Information and food are very different things, with the former spreading and duplicating every time a human comes in contact with it and often becoming readily available from a wide variety of sources. To be clear, I have no issue paying for what I find to be quality writing, especially when it brings a novel, well thought out perspective or context. The a large majority of stuff I see turning up in search results is not this, however, especially in recent years. That category is dominated by AI-written growth hacky low info drivel.
rafram 1mo ago
By this logic, listings for physical products shouldn't show in search results either, because they're just ads for something you have to pay for. You aren't entitled to others' work for free, and sometimes the most relevant result for your search is something paid. This is a particularly tone-deaf line of reasoning on Hacker News, IMO, because the tech industry is (a) so, so much better paid than journalism, for work that is easier, and (b) largely responsible for the death of journalism as a sustainable business.
- cosmic_cheese 1mo ago
  Physical products are different because potential buyers are afforded a bevy of free, easily accessible ways to evaluate the product prior to purchase. I have no way to throughly evaluate the quality of a blog that cuts off everything but the first sixth of its posts or a news site that stonewalls me after viewing an article or two. I subscribe to multiple news sites and programming blogs and none of them resort to such tactics.
  - rafram 1mo ago
    Most newspapers/magazines have extremely generous intro offers. NYT offers $4/month! WSJ offers $8/month! You can get a great literary magazine like n+1 with physical issues for $3! These are extremely good deals. I mean, plenty of vibe-coded Show HN projects want more than that for something built in a weekend with close to zero ongoing costs.
    - cosmic_cheese 1mo ago
      It’s not just the monetary cost, but also the overhead involved. It’s yet another subscription to have to manage (and eventually jump through hoops to cancel) as well as the friction in the moment of needing to pull out a credit card or sign into PayPal or whatever. As far as vibe coded projects go, I go out of my way to not pay for them not just because of the same reasons outlined above, but also because their value is questionable at best.
      - 1mo ago
u554uu5u 1mo ago
they are reaching out out via normal means. you don't get to redefine words because you are too cheap to pay for information and only read trash. its so funny how you idiots gibble about "if you do not pay you are the product" but everything you know about the world is you being the product
- whackernews 1mo ago
  Lol, this guy thinks you pay for information. Do you think every bit of literature that is old, has no copyright, and in the public realm is trash? I tend to think the opposite actually. Nothing that’s been written in the past 100 years is worth the paper it’s on in my opinion. Maybe you’re the one who’s PAYING to read trash?
- ImPostingOnHN 1mo ago
  Normal means would be paying for ads, making cold calls, etc. You do not see ads for a new pressure washer on Google News because that is not a normal place for ads to go. You are free to redefine whatever you want for yourself.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

no-name-here 1mo ago

Is the idea that you strongly prefer seeing ads instead of paywalls?

ohyoutravel 1mo ago
I prefer ads because pihole blocks them. Paywalls block me, and then I have to reload and ninja enter reader mode, or if I’m reading inclined, find an archive link.
- no-name-here 1mo ago
  Wait, then how do you expect the journalists, sysadmins, server bills, etc. to get paid without paywalls and ads?
  - mionhe 1mo ago
    I think this short exchange highlights the problem really well. Most people are uninterested in paying for those services, in part because the internet has trained them that information is free and in part because of fairly extreme polarization in opinions that seems to be everywhere. Arguing that people should pay for the information they consume now is well and good, but that information was something the news companies were giving away for free not that many years ago, reinforcing the idea that information should be free. If there going to make money long term, they're going to have to find a new way to monetize. People are actively blocking the ads and don't want to pay for yet another subscription to content they don't access that often.
    - no-name-here 1mo ago
      > news companies were giving away for free not that many years ago Haven't either ads or paywalls/subscriptions always been the primary way that news companies paid for journalists/sysadmins/servers, etc? What was the funding source 'not that many years ago' if not ads or paywalls/subscriptions? > Arguing that people should pay for the information they consume now is well and good Is arguing such a thing "well and good"? I'm not complaining, but my GP comment merely asking how the other user expected the sites he wants to get content from will pay their costs (as they said ads and paywalls/subscriptions were out) got downvoted - I'm not even sure that goes as far as arguing that people should help pay for content that they want to receive.
      - ImPostingOnHN 1mo ago
        > my GP comment merely asking how the other user expected the sites he wants to get content from In most cases, I am not particular about which site I read a syndicated government quote on, so "sites I want to get content from" isn't an accurate description of the use case. The use case is more "If I search for information, and a site shows up in the results claiming to have it, but when I am baited in, the content switches to an advertisement which I cannot bypass without paying: then I do not want that site to show up in my search results anymore".
        no-name-here 1mo ago
        1. Doesn't that just bring us back to the questions that were explicitly raised in the parent/GP comments, such as if you don't want paywalls or subscriptions, then does that mean that you strongly prefer viewing ads (so that the servers, people, etc get paid)? 2. "read a syndicated government quote" - actually, maybe this is the more important thing - I would strongly recommend that you change your news sources so that you are not solely consuming just whatever the government says - instead, switch to news sites that actually employ (and pay) real journalists, editors, etc to not just report what the government is saying, but also to report on the majority of news that the government isn't talking about, and even if it's a topic that the government talks about, to also report what's happening on the ground, to compare government actions to historical precedents, etc etc etc. There are even sites out there that will evaluate a wide variety of news sources based on everything from right/left leaning, to reliability. If you need any help finding some, please let me know. 3. > "sites I want to get content from" isn't an accurate description of the use case If I can't convince you to switch your sources to sources that employee real journalists, editors, etc (instead of simply regurgitating government claims), then I guess the accurate description for your case in particular would "sites that you want to just hear government claims repeated from"? (Although I do hope that I can convince you to switch away from your current use case.)

cosmic_cheese 1mo ago

Right. I don’t mind paying when the value is clear and I feel like my time has been respected, and paywalled link showing up in search violates the second of those two. In most of the circumstances when those show up in my search I’m looking for information for immediate use and I am not going whip out a credit card. If I run into a paywall, I’m immediately hitting the back button and moving on to the next result, so it’s better if they just never show up in search at all.

bitpush 1mo ago
This sounds a bit odd to me. When I'm hungry, I dont run to McDonald's and expect to be fed for free. I whip out my card, pay for the items, patiently wait for the food to be arrive and then eat. You could very well argue that why are you making me wait for my food when I'm hungry. What gives?
- natios 1mo ago
  i think the crux here is you can’t get the food for free next door like you can get with information
- cosmic_cheese 1mo ago
  The sibling reply has the right idea. Information and food are very different things, with the former spreading and duplicating every time a human comes in contact with it and often becoming readily available from a wide variety of sources. To be clear, I have no issue paying for what I find to be quality writing, especially when it brings a novel, well thought out perspective or context. The a large majority of stuff I see turning up in search results is not this, however, especially in recent years. That category is dominated by AI-written growth hacky low info drivel.

rafram 1mo ago

By this logic, listings for physical products shouldn't show in search results either, because they're just ads for something you have to pay for. You aren't entitled to others' work for free, and sometimes the most relevant result for your search is something paid. This is a particularly tone-deaf line of reasoning on Hacker News, IMO, because the tech industry is (a) so, so much better paid than journalism, for work that is easier, and (b) largely responsible for the death of journalism as a sustainable business.

cosmic_cheese 1mo ago
Physical products are different because potential buyers are afforded a bevy of free, easily accessible ways to evaluate the product prior to purchase. I have no way to throughly evaluate the quality of a blog that cuts off everything but the first sixth of its posts or a news site that stonewalls me after viewing an article or two. I subscribe to multiple news sites and programming blogs and none of them resort to such tactics.
- rafram 1mo ago
  Most newspapers/magazines have extremely generous intro offers. NYT offers $4/month! WSJ offers $8/month! You can get a great literary magazine like n+1 with physical issues for $3! These are extremely good deals. I mean, plenty of vibe-coded Show HN projects want more than that for something built in a weekend with close to zero ongoing costs.
  - cosmic_cheese 1mo ago
    It’s not just the monetary cost, but also the overhead involved. It’s yet another subscription to have to manage (and eventually jump through hoops to cancel) as well as the friction in the moment of needing to pull out a credit card or sign into PayPal or whatever. As far as vibe coded projects go, I go out of my way to not pay for them not just because of the same reasons outlined above, but also because their value is questionable at best.
    - 1mo ago

u554uu5u 1mo ago

they are reaching out out via normal means. you don't get to redefine words because you are too cheap to pay for information and only read trash. its so funny how you idiots gibble about "if you do not pay you are the product" but everything you know about the world is you being the product

whackernews 1mo ago
Lol, this guy thinks you pay for information. Do you think every bit of literature that is old, has no copyright, and in the public realm is trash? I tend to think the opposite actually. Nothing that’s been written in the past 100 years is worth the paper it’s on in my opinion. Maybe you’re the one who’s PAYING to read trash?
ImPostingOnHN 1mo ago
Normal means would be paying for ads, making cold calls, etc. You do not see ads for a new pressure washer on Google News because that is not a normal place for ads to go. You are free to redefine whatever you want for yourself.