TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Democracy Dies Behind Paywalls – Paywalled

79 点作者 dschuetz大约 1 年前

14 条评论

usr1106大约 1 年前
Requesting free journalism is like requesting free food. Both are essential, but few would expect food being distributed for free.<p>Subscriptions are fine, I pay for several. But they don&#x27;t fit every use case. There should be a way to pay for a single article. Some micropayment service(s) so you don&#x27;t need an account with every web site you might want to read.<p>It has been tried numerous time without success. Not sure when the right time and the right concept will come.
评论 #40053411 未加载
评论 #40053633 未加载
评论 #40055839 未加载
评论 #40052275 未加载
评论 #40054599 未加载
评论 #40053803 未加载
评论 #40055503 未加载
评论 #40053271 未加载
评论 #40055430 未加载
LeroyRaz大约 1 年前
The quality of most (nearly all) media is (embarrassingly) poor though. You often find more serious reporting on YouTube than in the press!! For example, the YouTuber CoffeeZilla gave a far more earnest coverage of SBF than any newspaper I came across.<p>Similarly, I think I would rather read a blog written by an expert on their area of expertise (for free) than read a newspaper&#x27;s (sloppy) filtering of that.<p>And, if I care deeply enough about a topic, I would rather read a book about it. What service do these newspapers think they serve?<p>To corrupt an adage, I honestly think the best reporting is generally free (e.g. coffeezilla, e.g., excellent in-depth podcasts, e.g. many excellent articles and essays linked via HackerNews, etc...) and the second best is more expensive than most newspapers can afford to be (e.g., a book).
评论 #40056451 未加载
评论 #40055886 未加载
hcfman大约 1 年前
This is so true… and stuff disappears from the internet news a lot. In Europe they have laws that are invoked a lot that should be renamed to the right to politicians to remain unaccountable.<p>Privacy is portayed by the authorities as someone to protect the people, but in reality the people have none and it’s really used to hide the illegal and corrupt actions of government officials.
评论 #40054267 未加载
skybrian大约 1 年前
At a smaller scale, for an independent writer publishing on Substack, I’m a fan of the model where most articles are free but some are for paid subscribers only. If you’re publishing something of widespread interest, maybe that one should be free.<p>Maybe that would work for larger websites too? They do often have gift links, which are another way to do it. Limited-time promotions seem like a reasonable way to get new subscribers, and an election is an excuse to do it. It would get traffic from people who do last-minute research on less-covered races.<p>I’m skeptical about how much effect it would have on the races where most people have already made up their minds. How would that work? Would it increase turnout?
60secs大约 1 年前
Too bad there&#x27;s not a netflix&#x2F;spotify for journalism. No single journalism source is worth a subscription for 99.9% of people. Aggregated, maybe.
评论 #40053504 未加载
评论 #40053198 未加载
zer00eyz大约 1 年前
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;0kiur" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;0kiur</a><p>To get around the paywall...
评论 #40053012 未加载
rmorey大约 1 年前
Another article I quite like about this (not paywalled!) <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.currentaffairs.org&#x2F;2020&#x2F;08&#x2F;the-truth-is-paywalled-but-the-lies-are-free&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.currentaffairs.org&#x2F;2020&#x2F;08&#x2F;the-truth-is-paywalle...</a>
评论 #40055971 未加载
troyvit大约 1 年前
So what&#x27;s the answer then? Before the internet almost all journalism was &quot;paywalled.&quot; You either bought a subscription or an individual copy of what the organization has to offer.<p>Ad-supported journalism is a joke in a society that abuses advertising so thoroughly. Using an ad blocker is more than a convenience, it&#x27;s a security measure. Arguably it&#x27;s also better for the environment [1] [2].<p>One article [3] argues for &quot;non-reformist reforms,&quot; which try to mitigate the commercial pressures on journalism. However the article&#x27;s solution seems to be to switch to public media models and&#x2F;or government funding. As the article puts it:<p>&quot;Therefore, any initiative that erodes the commercial and anti-democratic design of existing media institutions—by transitioning them into nonprofit outlets, facilitating public media partnerships, unionizing newsrooms, and establishing media cooperatives—can help radicalize news workers and engage communities while laying the groundwork for more transformative change in the future.&quot;<p>I honestly don&#x27;t know how well that&#x27;ll work, but it&#x27;s also basically what the article suggests to pay for journalism for a year:<p>&quot;They can enlist foundations or other sponsors to underwrite their work. They can turn to readers who are willing to subscribe, renew their subscriptions, or make added donations to subsidize important coverage during a crucial election.&quot;<p>Stengel&#x27;s article also says, &quot;A large percentage of these Americans see media as being biased. Well, part of the reason they think media are biased is that most fair, accurate, and unbiased news sits behind a wall.&quot;<p>That wasn&#x27;t true 40 years ago and I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s true now. A lot of journalism strives to be unbiased, but that will always be a goal it reaches for, not one it will attain. To say otherwise only continues to erode society&#x27;s trust of journalism.<p>The money to pay journalists has to come from somewhere.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;marmelab.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2022&#x2F;01&#x2F;17&#x2F;media-websites-carbon-emissions.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;marmelab.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2022&#x2F;01&#x2F;17&#x2F;media-websites-carbon-e...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mdpi.com&#x2F;2227-7080&#x2F;8&#x2F;2&#x2F;18" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mdpi.com&#x2F;2227-7080&#x2F;8&#x2F;2&#x2F;18</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lpeproject.org&#x2F;blog&#x2F;taking-media-out-of-the-market&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lpeproject.org&#x2F;blog&#x2F;taking-media-out-of-the-market&#x2F;</a>
评论 #40053412 未加载
mrkramer大约 1 年前
News paywalls are deeply problematic because when you &quot;surf&quot; the Web and when you stumble upon some paywalled article, you are either stuck (blocked from viewing the content) and you leave or you view the paywalled article in &quot;pirated&quot; version via our &quot;beloved&quot; archive.is. This dynamic is not good for a news industry as a whole.<p>I never subscribed to a newspaper and I don&#x27;t know what exactly drives an average Joe to subscribe to one but my assumption is that one or two paywalled articles won&#x27;t drive someone to subscribe to the newspaper, it would rather frustrate them to get stuck and blocked from reading. Either you will subscribe because of the word of mouth and perceived reputation of the newspaper or you will subscribe because your favorite author is writing for the newspaper you want to subscribe. That&#x27;s why I find it mind boggling that for example The Economist&#x27;s news articles are anonymous and not signed by authors.<p>My suggested solutions are: 1. Make old news articles free and really new ones paywalled or 2. Introduce micropayments for each article (for example 10 cents to unlock an article for lifetime) or 3. Aggregate all paywalled articles across different newspapers to some news aggregator and then ask people to subscribe.<p>Tbh, I&#x27;m a huge fan of independent journalism and internet blogging which are free and either ad-supported or donation supported.
beryilma大约 1 年前
The problem with paywalls is that every organization wants your money separately. I don&#x27;t want to create a separate account with NY Times, YouTube TV, The Guardian, Atlantic, Bloomberg, etc. and pay for each service separately. In particular, I consider each such account a security risk for data breaches and a potential for leaking my private information. Maintaining each account, having separate passwords, dealing with burdensome and intentionally difficult cancellations are all major headaches.<p>I don&#x27;t want Google and the likes to become more powerful either, but some kind of consolidated access to all such information might be a better approach for the news consumer. Perhaps some kind of pay per &quot;article&quot; model might work better.<p>I would have been more willing to pay something like 25 cents per article if there was a universal access model.<p>I suprise myself saying this, but AOL model was probably a more consumer friendly approach...
notnef大约 1 年前
Kinda funny that this article gets cut off by a paywall
评论 #40061660 未加载
jfengel大约 1 年前
The paywalls aren&#x27;t the problem. Information leaks around paywalls. The facts have always been available. You might not be able to get the primary source, but people are always bad about primary sources. People who want to believe disinformation have never let that stop them.<p>If anything, a paywall suggests that somebody has put some effort into gathering that news. People peddling disinformation want to pay you to take it.<p>I believe the real issue is that the disinformation is so popular. It&#x27;s crafted so that some people want to hear it. It&#x27;s usually not difficult to refute, but there&#x27;s so much of it that it that even if you&#x27;re skeptical it&#x27;s hard to swat away 100% of it.<p>Putting a paywall between you and the actual news source doesn&#x27;t help, but even if it were free, it&#x27;s just too much work. And those who don&#x27;t want to believe it won&#x27;t.
anfilt大约 1 年前
Oh the irony lol.
评论 #40051620 未加载
egberts1大约 1 年前
&quot;Democracy dies in Darkness&quot; -- paywalled Washington Post since 2017.