21–30 of 53 posts
Why should we stop linking paywalled articles and not books or software or other non free things?
> How much time could we save each other by not linking to paywalls? Not very much? How much time do you really spend clicking "Back" after hitting a paywall? Most have very simple workarounds and/or someone will post an archive or outline link in the comments.
It's not just about wasting time. Often a headline will interest me, click, oops, nope, can't read it. Some stories certainly are genuinely unique to a particular news site, but often most of the NYT/WSJ/etc. articles posted aren't exactly high-quality and something very similar can be found on CNN, AP, etc.
I think it's worth paying for good quality journalism. It's nice to support the institutions that serve a vital role to the checks and balances of our democracy. Also, some of you may not know it but you can access the news for free through your local library. For example, I get the NY Times online via the Santa Clara County Library.
The OP is not really weighing in on the value of pay walls, nor whether or not they actually ensure "good journalism." The issue being raised here is that posting pay-walled links increases friction for, I would imagine, the overwhelming majority of users of the site.
I wouldn't expect people from, say, India, or even Brazil, to be able to get the NYT from their public libraries. They have their own newspapers to subsidize.
There could be a correlation of it being a pivotal article and having a paid business model.
Outline.com - however, it does not work on some sites, e.g. WSJ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just about wasting time. Often a headline will interest me, click, oops, nope, can't read it. Some stories certainly are genuinely unique to a particular news site, but often most of the NYT/WSJ/etc. articles posted aren't exactly high-quality and something very similar can be found on CNN, AP, etc.
This is where the aforementioned workarounds come in.
While I'll occasionally click on an archive.is link, ethically (and legally) it's not great to mirror someone else's paid content for free.
I think it's worth paying for good quality journalism. It's nice to support the institutions that serve a vital role to the checks and balances of our democracy. Also, some of you may not know it but you can access the news for free through your local library. For example, I get the NY Times online via the Santa Clara County Library.
If your argument should be applicable for content posted on a link aggregator followers should either subscripe to everything, turning the link aggregator into a money cow, or they will hit the wall so often that the aggregator becomes futile.
Another option would be a convention to add a tag that the article is paywalled.
I think it's worth paying for good quality journalism. It's nice to support the institutions that serve a vital role to the checks and balances of our democracy. Also, some of you may not know it but you can access the news for free through your local library. For example, I get the NY Times online via the Santa Clara County Library.
I did not know this! I would totally do this instead of going around them! Do you have more info on this? (I do pay for those I really like, but for those in which I only read an occasional article or two, I don’t particularly feel like subscribing)
https://sccld.org/emagazines-news/?_ga=2.59104363.719460146....