Vox Media’s technology-focused site announced Tuesday that it was rolling out its first sitewide subscription service, putting some content behind a paywall.
“Can I have that once you’re finished with it?” Physical newspapers are subject to being given away by the original purchaser (or getting picked up from cafe tables or pulled from trashcans—people used to leave the damned things lying around everywhere), if you can’t afford to pay for them. It’s a bit more difficult to do that with digital content.
I guess gift links are a bit similar but obviously at a much smaller scale. I’m not sure how a fully similar digital system to sharing newspapers could be setup while still funding decent journalism.
I don’t hate paywalls though because I get it but I can’t say I’ve ever subscribed to get around one.
That doesn’t really address their point, that’s simply a motte and bailey. Limiting access to information (knowledge/education) on a basis of payment is a hindrance of lower classes not upper classes. We especially see this with academic publishing and the people writing those papers aren’t even paid for it usually.
You shouldn’t have to pay for the journalist or the transmission, similarly to education it is best for a society (especially a democracy) if information is freely accessible regardless of one’s finances.
We especially see this with academic publishing and the people writing those papers aren’t even paid for it usually.
I’m not in academia, but I’m pretty sure research papers are usually part of the job for many professors, and they are paid for those jobs. Research students get stipends (money) to live off of while doing research and publishing their work. So, money is supporting those efforts as well, right?
I’m not in support of having to pay for quality information being the way, but it is the way right now. There are people that refuse to pay for journalism, some saying because it restricts access to quality information to those that can’t afford it, but I posit boycotting paying for journalism is having a net negative effect on quality information getting into anyone’s hands, including those that don’t have the means to pay for it.
This is a systemic issue. Attacking the symptom isn’t helping. It’s just killing journalism as a whole.
I’m not in academia, but I’m pretty sure research papers are usually part of the job for many professors, and they are paid for those jobs. Research students get stipends (money) to live off of while doing research and publishing their work. So, money is supporting those efforts as well, right?
You don’t get paid for your research papers being published, it’s required in may fields but it isn’t something you get paid for. Stipends are not money to live off, in most cases you barely get by. So no, money is not supporting those efforts, it’s literally corporations taking the labor of researchers and making money off it.
I’m not in support of having to pay for quality information being the way, but it is the way right now. There are people that refuse to pay for journalism, some saying because it restricts access to quality information to those that can’t afford it, but I posit boycotting paying for journalism is having a net negative effect on quality information getting into anyone’s hands, including those that don’t have the means to pay for it.
Who are you shadowboxing here? I’m simply agreeing that information SHOULD be free and you clearly agree.
Focusing on the information we want, presented at the standard we expect, do you think we’re supposed to get all of that from hobbyists and volunteers? In our current, prevailing economic system, gathering and presenting information (reporting) takes time and effort. Entities that put their time and effort into the task, are going to need financial support. Everybody’s gotta eat.
In our present paradigm, if journalism is not supported financially, quality information would be less available. We already have to sift through a ton of bullshit on the web. Nobody paying for quality will drop the overall quality further. The emotional appeal for the less fortunate doesn’t change that.
I’m not trying to antagonize, but I wholeheartedly disagree with your sentiment. Though it would be ideal; it’s not realistic at the moment. I do hope we get there.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t live in a utopia that works like this. Journalists have wages, web servers cost a lot of money to run. Printing presses and physical distribution channels also cost a lot of money. If information should be free, how should publishers pay for all of these labor and infrastructure costs?
Everything you said is true and I never implied it wasn’t I was just saying that information should be free. If I had an idea on how to make it work I’d be working on it
If it is behind a paywall, it isnt news, it is an asset.
So physical newspapers aren’t news?
“Can I have that once you’re finished with it?” Physical newspapers are subject to being given away by the original purchaser (or getting picked up from cafe tables or pulled from trashcans—people used to leave the damned things lying around everywhere), if you can’t afford to pay for them. It’s a bit more difficult to do that with digital content.
I guess gift links are a bit similar but obviously at a much smaller scale. I’m not sure how a fully similar digital system to sharing newspapers could be setup while still funding decent journalism.
I don’t hate paywalls though because I get it but I can’t say I’ve ever subscribed to get around one.
News papers are a physical item, not bits hidden behind a boolean set to true. Plus, I can go read a newspaper at the store if I want to.
You pay for information and not paper or pixels.
Information should be free. Putting it behind a paywall makes it so the less fortunate suffer by being kept out of the loop.
Information is free, it’s the transmission medium (paper printing or webservers) and the journalist’s wages that you should pay for.
That doesn’t really address their point, that’s simply a motte and bailey. Limiting access to information (knowledge/education) on a basis of payment is a hindrance of lower classes not upper classes. We especially see this with academic publishing and the people writing those papers aren’t even paid for it usually.
You shouldn’t have to pay for the journalist or the transmission, similarly to education it is best for a society (especially a democracy) if information is freely accessible regardless of one’s finances.
I’m not in academia, but I’m pretty sure research papers are usually part of the job for many professors, and they are paid for those jobs. Research students get stipends (money) to live off of while doing research and publishing their work. So, money is supporting those efforts as well, right?
I’m not in support of having to pay for quality information being the way, but it is the way right now. There are people that refuse to pay for journalism, some saying because it restricts access to quality information to those that can’t afford it, but I posit boycotting paying for journalism is having a net negative effect on quality information getting into anyone’s hands, including those that don’t have the means to pay for it.
This is a systemic issue. Attacking the symptom isn’t helping. It’s just killing journalism as a whole.
You don’t get paid for your research papers being published, it’s required in may fields but it isn’t something you get paid for. Stipends are not money to live off, in most cases you barely get by. So no, money is not supporting those efforts, it’s literally corporations taking the labor of researchers and making money off it.
Who are you shadowboxing here? I’m simply agreeing that information SHOULD be free and you clearly agree.
Sounds like an impractical philosophy to me.
Focusing on the information we want, presented at the standard we expect, do you think we’re supposed to get all of that from hobbyists and volunteers? In our current, prevailing economic system, gathering and presenting information (reporting) takes time and effort. Entities that put their time and effort into the task, are going to need financial support. Everybody’s gotta eat.
In our present paradigm, if journalism is not supported financially, quality information would be less available. We already have to sift through a ton of bullshit on the web. Nobody paying for quality will drop the overall quality further. The emotional appeal for the less fortunate doesn’t change that.
I’m not trying to antagonize, but I wholeheartedly disagree with your sentiment. Though it would be ideal; it’s not realistic at the moment. I do hope we get there.
I also hope we get there which is why I said it should be free.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t live in a utopia that works like this. Journalists have wages, web servers cost a lot of money to run. Printing presses and physical distribution channels also cost a lot of money. If information should be free, how should publishers pay for all of these labor and infrastructure costs?
Everything you said is true and I never implied it wasn’t I was just saying that information should be free. If I had an idea on how to make it work I’d be working on it
You might. 🏴☠️
deleted by creator