No, we just expect them not to be posted on link aggregators like HN. Because they are useless links for 99% of readers.
Did you know that video game piracy enhances video game sales? That's because if someone pirates a game and likes it, they might buy it, recommend it to friends, or buy the next one.
There used to be journalists in every town or city working for local newspapers back when ad revenue stayed local. Don’t confuse the success of a handful of top journals with the health of the field.
> In 1990 we had one daily news(paper) journalist for every 4,490 Americans. Now (or 2019 to be exact), we have one such reporter per 14,250.
Paying for individual publications you like is fine.
Paying for all the publications that get articles on the HN front page would be very expensive. Only a minority of people reading HN would have subscribed to any one publication. The result is that paywalled articles can only be properly discussed by a minority people. It also encourages discussion of the headline instead of the article.
Google, serving adds to the article reader? Adds are annoying, but we’re free to leave if we don’t like how a website is managed.
I personally loves the way HN pages are served as they are loading very fast even on not-high end devices, and volunteers contributes to the content (comments).
Paywall are annoying and there’s always someone that post an archive link to circumvent it but I’m not sure about the ethic of a rule requiring to do so.
It's all so bizarre. They don't want to pay but expect in-depth articles.
It's akin somewhat to the open-source crowd demanding features (and security updates) all without donating to the project.
No, we just expect them not to be posted on link aggregators like HN. Because they are useless links for 99% of readers.
Did you know that video game piracy enhances video game sales? That's because if someone pirates a game and likes it, they might buy it, recommend it to friends, or buy the next one.
> They don't want to pay but expect in-depth articles.
You are putting words in my mouth I've never said. I don't "expect in-depth articles", HN would be perfectly fine without paywalled content.
Jeff Bezos, probably. The internet really is the death of quality journalism, and democracy slowly dies with it.
> The internet really is the death of quality journalism
At every level of quality, there is more journalism than there was before.
There used to be journalists in every town or city working for local newspapers back when ad revenue stayed local. Don’t confuse the success of a handful of top journals with the health of the field.
> In 1990 we had one daily news(paper) journalist for every 4,490 Americans. Now (or 2019 to be exact), we have one such reporter per 14,250.
https://www.reportforamerica.org/2021/06/28/the-journalist-p...
Slowly?
We're still in the denial phase.
Paying for individual publications you like is fine.
Paying for all the publications that get articles on the HN front page would be very expensive. Only a minority of people reading HN would have subscribed to any one publication. The result is that paywalled articles can only be properly discussed by a minority people. It also encourages discussion of the headline instead of the article.
Google, serving adds to the article reader? Adds are annoying, but we’re free to leave if we don’t like how a website is managed.
I personally loves the way HN pages are served as they are loading very fast even on not-high end devices, and volunteers contributes to the content (comments).
Paywall are annoying and there’s always someone that post an archive link to circumvent it but I’m not sure about the ethic of a rule requiring to do so.