Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30 • Hacker News Board

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#151

Post by levythe » Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 11:00 PM UTC

danharaj wrote: post #146

_delirium wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some good publications are nonpaywalled nonprofits that rely on donations. Not sure you can make that work in every niche, but two examples: https://www.quantamagazine.org/ , https://www.texastribune.org/

Quanta has the Simons foundation behind it. How free is a press if it can only live off the good will of a billionaire?

While your question isn't wrong, how is that fundamentally different from how things were before? How can news be free if it relies upon paying readership for its sustained production?

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#152

Post by fooey » Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 11:07 PM UTC

qmarchi wrote: post #10

There are going to be people complaining about the new requirement to have an account to view content. To the publishers, you should _really_ use some kind of federated login. Google, Apple, Facebook, etc. but don't forget those who are willing to have a unique account.

The problem with requiring an account to view content is doing so removes your content entirely from Google, and probably from most social media snippet generators.

Google will only include your content in their search results if the user can see your content. The "metered paywall" trick is a loophole to get around that.

If you put all your content behind a paywall, you're siloing yourself off from the entire rest of the internet, at least as far as discoverability goes.

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#153

Post by manigandham » Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 11:11 PM UTC

literallycancer wrote: post #150

hyperbovine wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, their model is fine. Sell a decent product for money. The problem lies squarely with hordes of credulous morons who either don’t know or don’t care that their news is fake, and aren’t willing to shell out for quality content. Whether that exposes a deeper flaw in human nature, or is just an oddity of our times, is left to you to decide.

Newspapers don't know how to sell properly and it's the users' fault for not buying?

People, through their actions, have proven they want free and easy sensationalism. Not in-depth investigative reporting. You can't really just sell into that.

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#154

Post by literallycancer » Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 11:14 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #128

vorpalhex wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's $200 a year for a newspaper I read about once a week and that doesn't even get me their cooking section.

That's $200 a year for a newspaper I read about once a week Seems reasonable to me. Important journalism isn't free. If you want free trash, Buzzfeed is your friend. that doesn't even get me their cooking section. Lucky you! From that same link someone else posted above you can subscribe to the cooking section for $40 for a whole year ($3/month). And then you don't have to have the newspaper that you're not going to…

>Important journalism isn't free.

Isn't it? It seems that most journalism these days consists of taking things from a news agency feed and polluting them with garbage opinions. Might as well read the source.

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#155

Post by justinc8687 » Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 11:21 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #144

reaperducer wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's $200 a year for a newspaper I read about once a week Seems reasonable to me. Important journalism isn't free. If you want free trash, Buzzfeed is your friend. that doesn't even get me their cooking section. Lucky you! From that same link someone else posted above you can subscribe to the cooking section for $40 for a whole year ($3/month). And then you don't have to have the newspaper that you're not going to…

$4 per article for a paper that's $2.50 on newsstands is not a reasonable price. > But go ahead and move the goalposts again. We'll wait. Stop that. The original goalpost clearly says $25-50.

Minor nitpick, the Sunday NYTimes is $5 in NY or $6 elsewhere. Mon - Sat are indeed $2.50.

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#156

Post by literallycancer » Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 11:22 PM UTC

panzagl wrote: post #89

matthewmcg wrote: post #60

Opening with a Niall Ferguson quote doesn’t help the author’s credibility for people familiar with the history of that particular “historian.”

Niall Ferguson is a historian, what makes you think otherwise?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson#Opinions_and_re...

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#157

Post by danharaj » Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 11:23 PM UTC

levythe wrote: post #151

danharaj wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quanta has the Simons foundation behind it. How free is a press if it can only live off the good will of a billionaire?

While your question isn't wrong, how is that fundamentally different from how things were before? How can news be free if it relies upon paying readership for its sustained production?

There was a brief golden age of newspapers that went away with industrialization. It hasn't been Ben Franklin's game for a long time and I think people need to think about what that has meant and will mean.

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#158

Post by Spivak » Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 11:26 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #153

literallycancer wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newspapers don't know how to sell properly and it's the users' fault for not buying?

People, through their actions, have proven they want free and easy sensationalism. Not in-depth investigative reporting. You can't really just sell into that.

The popularity of investigative journalism podcasts from NPR, Gimlet, ProPublica, Center for Investigative Reporting, etc. seem to disprove this theory.

Outside of a few exceptional pieces the typical content on print "news" sites is utter garbage. The pressure to have a bunch of different columns publishing multiple stories a day seems like it really drives the quality down. All the super cool long-form investigative journalism gets totally buried by "stories" or "updates" that are basically just a headline and a sentence or two of actual content.

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#159

Post by Dylan16807 » Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 11:29 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #58

FabHK wrote: post #33

> Without fail, the websites detected the intrusion attempt and prevented access to the content Using incognito mode in the browser to make it a bit harder to be tracked (without even blocking ads!) is "an intrusion attempt"? Excuse me? That's absurd language.

The author was deliberately trying to use incognito mode to view the paywalled content, so this is imho rightfully called an intrusion attempt. Of course, if you're just using incognito mode normally and happened to visit the same page, then it is not an intrusion attempt but just incognito browsing. The whole point is that news websites can't distinguish between the two.

It's equivalent to wiping your cookies. Going to a blank slate is definitely not an intrusion attempt.

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#160

Post by Spivak » Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 11:31 PM UTC

fooey wrote: post #152

qmarchi wrote: post #10

There are going to be people complaining about the new requirement to have an account to view content. To the publishers, you should _really_ use some kind of federated login. Google, Apple, Facebook, etc. but don't forget those who are willing to have a unique account.

The problem with requiring an account to view content is doing so removes your content entirely from Google, and probably from most social media snippet generators. Google will only include your content in their search results if the user can see your content. The "metered paywall" trick is a loophole to get around that. If you put all your content behind a paywall, you're siloing yourself off from the entire rest of…

> The "metered paywall" trick is a loophole to get around that.

Do keep in mind that this isn't so much a loophole, but an agreement that Google made with publishers so that they could stay ranked on Google. In the wake of this they might reach a different agreement.

If Google had a setting for "I am a subscriber to x,y,z -- please include them in my results" I would be so happy. I want to tell Google that I'm a Red Hat subscriber and want their KB articles first.