I’m so sorry to inform you, news sites, but when you tell me it’s not a paywall but you won’t let me read the thing without entering my email address… it’s a paywall. I’m paying you with my personal contact information. Actually I’m not paying you, I generally just close the tab.
@cobweb
This is really difficult. No-one wants to give out their private info, but news sites are trying to make money and don't want to give away their content for free.
Why should they employ an entire newsroom to research and report only to give it away for free? If you don't want to subscribe then you have to pay for advertising or no-one is going to pay for the service and it won't exist.
But...I get around this, I don't subscribe or pay, why should I pay when I can get around it?
@cobweb
The issue here is that news services have across the board failed to understand how to make their services worth the money that they are asking for with a subscription, because they belong to the old world of newspapers that have comprehensively failed to adapt to the internet.
They need to provide a better service that is actually worth paying for without exploiting private info.
And that will never happen. So the game continies.
@MostlyTato the problem, I think, isn't that their work isn't worth paying for, the problem is that their job is to speak truth to power, so the people who are supposed to most benefit from their work are also those least likely to be able to afford a newspaper subscription, let alone multiple, let alone the time and energy to read it all.
@31113
In that case, and I'm not arguing that you are incorrect, the entire paradigm collapses.
Which is exactly the problem. News services have to be paid for, no-one wants to, or can pay for them, so you get advertising riddled propaganda.
I don't claim its good or right, just that its how it is.
It's not the job of news services to speak the truth. That may be what we want them to do, but their function is to earn money for their investors. I wish it was otherwise.