3 ms·

mmmmm... even if I don't like paywall, I don't think that it's a good idea: when journalists aren't paid, they aren't working... and then, only advertisers will

mmmmm... even if I don't like paywall, I don't think that it's a good idea: when journalists aren't paid, they aren't working... and then, only advertisers will deliver the news. And I'm not sure that it would be a good thing...

clarry 12y ago
Is it better for the journalists that people close the tab a second after noticing the paywall? Because most will.
- adamnemecek 12y ago
  That's a decisions for the journalists to make, not for you.
- gareim 12y ago
  Well now you're just taking the argument to the opposite extreme. The company chose a business model and this add-on infringes on their rights.
  - jMyles 12y ago
    This doesn't infringe on their rights. They have the right to choose not to deliver the content and to respond with a 403. If they choose to deliver the content and respond with a 200, that's their decision. At that point, you're welcome to read it however you like.
- olivierduval 12y ago
  Most will close the tab... or wait a free digest from a third-party... but the few that will pay will help validate the business model, help journalists to earn their lives and do their job, and ultimatly keep the freedom of information. However I can agree with that kind of behaviour against business monopolies (for example microsoft few years ago, before gDocs and OpenOffice) because they're not playing by the rules (so they deserve it). But in this case: I can see everyday what "free newspapers" (using advertising & students copying Reuters newsfeed) did to "real newspapers": now it seems here, in France, that journalists just don't have any time to check, to think, to explain... to do their job in fact. When they have a paid job. And, at the end, it's the information freedom for everybody that has been hurt.
cpncrunch 12y ago
I suspect the journalists would make a lot more money if they put adverts on their online articles rather than a leaky paywall.
habosa 12y ago
Update: I took it down. See my top-level comment.

clarry 12y ago

Is it better for the journalists that people close the tab a second after noticing the paywall? Because most will.

adamnemecek 12y ago
That's a decisions for the journalists to make, not for you.
gareim 12y ago
Well now you're just taking the argument to the opposite extreme. The company chose a business model and this add-on infringes on their rights.
- jMyles 12y ago
  This doesn't infringe on their rights. They have the right to choose not to deliver the content and to respond with a 403. If they choose to deliver the content and respond with a 200, that's their decision. At that point, you're welcome to read it however you like.
olivierduval 12y ago
Most will close the tab... or wait a free digest from a third-party... but the few that will pay will help validate the business model, help journalists to earn their lives and do their job, and ultimatly keep the freedom of information. However I can agree with that kind of behaviour against business monopolies (for example microsoft few years ago, before gDocs and OpenOffice) because they're not playing by the rules (so they deserve it). But in this case: I can see everyday what "free newspapers" (using advertising & students copying Reuters newsfeed) did to "real newspapers": now it seems here, in France, that journalists just don't have any time to check, to think, to explain... to do their job in fact. When they have a paid job. And, at the end, it's the information freedom for everybody that has been hurt.

cpncrunch 12y ago

I suspect the journalists would make a lot more money if they put adverts on their online articles rather than a leaky paywall.

habosa 12y ago

Update: I took it down. See my top-level comment.