3 ms·

> WSJ certainly deserves to set whatever price on their work that they wish, and they also deserved to be compensated according to the value of that work. Don'

by mahouse 11y ago

> WSJ certainly deserves to set whatever price on their work that they wish, and they also deserved to be compensated according to the value of that work. Don't you think we should also have the option to decide not to pay using these "dirty" tricks of the trade?

traek 11y ago
I think we should (and do) have the option to decide not to pay and not consume the content.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  That's an answer to a different question. If WSJ, an amoral business entity, decides to serve different content to Google users and different content to everyone else, then you're left answering a question about user intent. Personally, I don't think it's fair that WSJ simultaneously demands money for content but leaves open a loophole so they can get Google exposure, and then complain when people use said exposure. It smacks of wanting to have their cake and eat it too. The entire point of the Google link and the whole paywall circumvention is so they can get traffic to their site, right? This implies that getting people on their site is more valuable to them than locking their content behind a paywall. They could always serve only a summary to both Google and to nonsubscribers from other referrers, but this leads to people mentally filing them in the "useless link, never click" bucket along with Experts Exchange and other crappy content farms.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    Actually, Google requires free article access from referrals to be included in Google News at all. (There are other ways, but I think that one was recommended.)
chavesn 11y ago
Yes, that is what I am trying to say. Karunamon (above/below[1]) said it better than I did. The WSJ deserves to be compensated for their work if they ask to be (in other words, consumers should not "steal" the content), but my questions is whether they have actually asked for the payment. In my opinion, this tactic is no different than offering it for free but then demanding payment anyway. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9534392 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9534392

by mahouse 11y ago

traek 11y ago

I think we should (and do) have the option to decide not to pay and not consume the content.

Karunamon 11y ago
That's an answer to a different question. If WSJ, an amoral business entity, decides to serve different content to Google users and different content to everyone else, then you're left answering a question about user intent. Personally, I don't think it's fair that WSJ simultaneously demands money for content but leaves open a loophole so they can get Google exposure, and then complain when people use said exposure. It smacks of wanting to have their cake and eat it too. The entire point of the Google link and the whole paywall circumvention is so they can get traffic to their site, right? This implies that getting people on their site is more valuable to them than locking their content behind a paywall. They could always serve only a summary to both Google and to nonsubscribers from other referrers, but this leads to people mentally filing them in the "useless link, never click" bucket along with Experts Exchange and other crappy content farms.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  Actually, Google requires free article access from referrals to be included in Google News at all. (There are other ways, but I think that one was recommended.)

chavesn 11y ago

Yes, that is what I am trying to say. Karunamon (above/below[1]) said it better than I did. The WSJ deserves to be compensated for their work if they ask to be (in other words, consumers should not "steal" the content), but my questions is whether they have actually asked for the payment. In my opinion, this tactic is no different than offering it for free but then demanding payment anyway. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9534392 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9534392