181–190 of 345 posts
>The Journal is a rarity in publishing in that it gets more money from readers than advertising This is probably a good indicator of quality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead of buying internet points for someone who figured out a little hack to access journalism, maybe you could instead pay for journalism?
A noble thought. My problem comes not from the fact that I don't want to pay but rather from the fact that it's super annoying. What if my browser could just say "article will be 25 cents?" and I could say y/n? But instead, I have to sign up for a service, hand over my credit card, blah blah, and now you've wasted enough of my time that it was worth just me stealing it. I'm pretty convinced it's just aUX thing.
The larger problem here is that unless they plan to have their Google search results all say "click here to pay" or similar, this entire scheme violates Google's cloaking policy and should result in their being deindexed. This has traditionally been the entire reason that sites offered this workaround - it wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts. Here's hoping Google actually enforces their policy.
What I don't get is that they could just leave the first two paragraphs and let every see that, then require you to subscribe for more - google would accept that and they would still show up in search, right?
If anyone's looking for another workaround, the article actually hints at the solution: Facebook's l.php redirect that it uses when you click on a link shared through the platform. It functions similarly to the Google redirect, and you don't even need a Facebook account for it to work. E.g. https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/article...
Does it work by checking the referrer? Maybe you can workaround by configuring a browser add-on (like RefControl) to just send facebook.com as a referrer while on WSJ.
Oh internet, what myths do you believe about yourself? That you are the harbinger of universal enlightenment and democracy?
First of all, I think it's great that journalists can get compensated for their work. but, strictly speaking as a consumer, I must say their paywall is completely out of touch with the way I want to pay for news consumption. I don't mind paying 5c or even 10c per article, but I'm certainly not going to sign up to pay 120$ for 6 months, if I'm only going to read 1 or 2 articles here and there. but since they've done i…
While I agree, it is probably a case of not being in their target market: - Average age: 40+ - Average household income: 250k+ - Average household net worth: 1.5m+ From http://www.wsjmediakit.com/files/uploads/201410/2016_WSJcom_... .
http://www.wsjmediakit.com/files/uploads/201410/WSJ.com%20Au...
Also, this is the _actual_ audience not their _target_ audience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it work by checking the referrer? Maybe you can workaround by configuring a browser add-on (like RefControl) to just send facebook.com as a referrer while on WSJ.
I believe this was discussed in one of the last threads as being potentially against some dumbass 25 year old law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How come this isn't culturally perceived in the same way as not paying for software or movies or music? Perhaps it is? I've almost never had anyone remark that I was doing something bad when not paying for a software or movie or music.
Let's pretend you developed a piece of software you want to sell. People download it without paying you. What do you do in that case?
a lot of artists would PAY to get millions of downloads/views
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How come this isn't culturally perceived in the same way as not paying for software or movies or music? Perhaps it is? I've almost never had anyone remark that I was doing something bad when not paying for a software or movie or music.
Well it is bad. You're basically a thief, no matter how you try to justify it to yourself. Really, you should be ashamed, rather than nonchalantly unconcerned about your behaviour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the Journal also started letting people read for free links that are shared on social media by subscribers and staffers. Because the publisher explicitly allows it.
No. The publisher wants their subscribers to be able to share the stuff they pay for with other people. If you use that feature to read for free any content they publish, you misuse it. Now, I am very much against any DRM, I don't even really believe that intellectual property should be protected by law, but I believe that content creators have legitimate (but not necessarily legal) right to be paid for their content…