Generally, for recreational web use, I never use Javascript, or even CSS. I prefer to use a text-only browser.<p>There are websites that apparently have "paywalls", but without Javascript, I do not even know these "paywalls" exist. I read every article on a website without any indication of any limitations.<p>The NY Times and The Economist are examples. What people refer to as "paywalls" are simply Javascript annoyances. One has to run the Javascript to experience the annoyance.<p>Perhaps the "privilege" of running the website's Javascript is a "benefit" of subscription. However I would not run the Javascript regardless of whether I was subscribed or not. That choice has nothing to do with the idea of "paywall". I choose not to run Javascript on any website. This improves the web experience for me in too many ways to count.<p>News publications could approach susbscription as (a) access versus (b) no access, e.g., password-protection. Yet some publications approach subscription instead as (a) access without Javascript annoyances versus (b) access with Javascript annoyances. Of course (b) only applies if one chooses to run the Javascript.<p>Every web user has the option not to run other people's code, i.e., Javascript.<p>The access model that scientific journals use seems to work well enough. Access is granted to an IP address. If the subscriber is on a different IP address, she can get access through a password-protected proxy.