If you have a subscription to Apple News, you can use the Share > News.app feature to open most paywalled major news outlets. And the outlet gets paid.
I don’t have an Android device, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it has something similar.
The message a paywalled article tells me is: I know I’ll benefit immensely and the article is a must-read, or they’ll tell me not to be interested in the outlet. Almost all the time it’s the latter. Yes, I currently subscribe to one (print) news source.
You serious ?..so, how does a books author get paid ? Fiction or non fiction. A journalist or photographer ? They should just do the work unpaid ? that’s real people using real time…
Seriously…whatever you read…someone created that…and you dont think they should be compensated…or just not by you ?
no, we don't. we just don't want to pay several times to read a news article: first, a paywall (often with ridiculous prices), second, with our data. news sites mostly have the most hostile cookie policies in place i have ever seen - they want to "analyze" EVERYTHING, on of the bigger news papers in my country wants to install like 20 cookies just to allow me to visit their site. and third, ads left and right, autoplay videos and a hunger for hardware like a contemporary video game. finally, let's not talk about the quality of most contemporary news outlets, somewhere inbetween buzzfeed clickbait and being a gov't spox.
i worked over a decade in one of the biggest multinational publishing houses in europe, right on time when everyting went digital and that experience haunts me to this day.
If those news sources don’t want to give away content for free then they shouldn’t transmit those contents to the user’s computer and then run a client-side script to pretend that they didn’t.
I would probably drop 50 cents to read a single article from a news site that I’m not on consistantly but expecting normals paying for 3 or 4 $10 a month subscriptions for news seems to be what is expected and that is just not realistic.
The ads that already show on the article page should be paying you. i have no issue paying for services, but at the coffee shop i can read the newspaper for free, paywalling news blocks poor folks from participating
Welcome to Lemmy. A place where the user based thinks that anarchism works, everything only being free isn’t mainstream, and that piracy is the answer to teaching big companies a lesson but they will pirate Zelda and talk about how great it is but how terrible Nintendo is rather than just buying Zelda to support devs.
I have been on here 3 weeks and in those 3 weeks I have learned the community here has this thought that they are not as big of ass holes as people on Reddit. However, they are just as inclusive and additionally just different kinds of assholes.
I’m going to be honest here. If you live in a poor country, sure go ahead and bypass the paywall. But if you can afford it buy the subscription. Real journalism actually takes time and money. Because otherwise news sites depend on ad revenue which then results in click bait journalism. There is no third option. Journalism, much like anything else, is not free.
I’ve never come across a single paywalled news site that was worth subscribing to. Pretty much 100% of the paywalled content I’ve ever come across were all some random links I found via Google or Reddit (and now Lemmy). It wasn’t like I was particularly trying to visit that site and read all of their articles or something. Also, just so we’re clear, I’m not saying that I don’t to pay/donate/subscribe to stuff - I subscribe to Spotify because I use it daily and it’s worth it, I subscribe to Sync because I use it daily and it’s worth it etc.
But most of these paywalled news sites (or some random scientific paper published on some random science journal) isn’t something that I’m really interested in pursuing a subscription for, just because I stumbled upon some random link out of curiosity - so if they think that I’ll subscribe just because of one random article… that’s just shitty business.
Ideally, they should just let me view that random article for free and set a cookie (could be server-side) and say “hey, your IP address has viewed three articles on this site already, so we think you like our stuff so, you should really consider subscribing if you want to read more content!”. I mean, that makes sense. I’d then go, “yep, this site has quality content and the type of content I’d like to read, so it’s worth subscribing to”.
But no, instead they’re like “heeey random visitor, you just stumbled upon this random link and hey guess what, you need an entire subscription just to read one ducking article! Of course, asking you to pay for a whole month’s worth of subscription makes total sense, and isn’t going to put you off, right?”
My hot take is that we need more journalists on the NPR / local affiliate model. People should pledge to their local journalists, no news hidden behind subscriptions. Pay what you can, subscribers get early access to the entertainment / pop culture content, and don’t get blasted with pledge requests.
That model works great if you tend to get your news primarily from one news source. If you don't, then that's a lot of subscriptions, and especially if you want to go look at a local news article that got linked somewhere for a town you don't even live in. Most of the time I don't even want to register an account, let alone set up a subscription.
There used to be aggregate subscriptions where you would get multiple participating websites under one payment, and then it would distribute the money based on your actual views. Kinda like Spotify for news.
It always seems to fall apart after a while, with websites just opting for their own individual systems (I guess they get more money that way?).
I recently discovered that the Firefox add-on, ublock origin, has in its chooseable block lists, under annoyances, a cookie notice blocker with lots of other annoyance blockers as well.
Navigate to the uBlock Origin settings. · Select the “Filter lists” tab. · Scroll to the “Annoyances” section. Place a check mark next to “AdGuard/uBO – Cookie Notices”.
Basically Cloudflare aren’t giving Archive.is a piece of DNS information which Cloudflare says is good for privacy and Archive.is says is bad for their ability to load content from regional CDNs
No, the sites just tell 12ft.oi to blacklist them and they do, there aren’t any wise tricks. We can only speculate whether 12ft.io is taking payments or are just afraid of getting sued.
I’m sure most are already aware of it, but to get around it they’d have to lock part of the article behind a “load more” button that requires JS (or even just auto-load it via JS without a button), which I have seen some do.
There must be a reason it’s not done universally though. Maybe because it’d break archives? Not sure
Add comment