How to post a non-paywall link

[intrepidity]

If you have access to an article that you suspect may be paywalled for others, go here:

https://archive.ph

and paste the link to the article there, where they will preserve a static copy for their archive and will generate a link to that page, which you can then post here.

Many will appreciate it.

[JudyM]

1. Great post, intrepidity, thanks!

[AZSkiffyGeek]

2. Articles are paywalled for a reason

If you don't believe in paying journalists, why are you sharing their articles?

[intrepidity]

4. I *do* believe in paying them

I just can't pay *all* of them myself.

Can you?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

5. So you steal articles you can't pay for?

Is that how it works?
There's a really easy solution if you can't pay for a subscription. You don't read it.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Or read it at the library.

[intrepidity]

7. That's a complex topic

and deserves a dedicated thread, if you'd like to start one elsewhere, please.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

8. Why someplace else?

You're the one who is advocating stealing content that you can't pay for.
I lost my job for one of the biggest newspapers in the country because people didn't pay for online content, and the website you linked to is getting sued by major publishing houses for piracy.
I'm not sure what's complex about it, other than some people feel privileged in thinking that anything online is free to take.

[usonian]

9. The internet SHOULD and COULD allow direct payment to creators.

But media are full of gatekeepers and highwaymen (highwaypersons?)

(OPINION)
Until that time,

Paywalls just build the digital divide wall higher.

When all the factual information is at a cost (or 100 different costs, each with an account and a login and your easily leaked credit card) and
LIES and HATE are free, then

It's not only a digital divide, it's a truth divide, give or take some public media outlets.

We should support them and not the gatekeepers.
And they have little or no loyalty to their in-house creators.

(/OPINION)

Digital payments?
Digital payments have not worked, because (IMO) they are mostly in the hands of speculators, not altruistic souls.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

10. Stealing is okay because big corporations gatekeepers and "truth"?

Love the situational ethics here.
And the Internet is allowing direct payment to creators. The New York Times created the content, and they're charging you for it.
Enjoyed my two years of unemployment because of attitudes like this.

[intrepidity]

12. I suspect (and hope) you used those two years of UI payments

to post FREE content on the Internet, because that approaches one part of the solution to workers being displaced in a disrupted segment of the economy.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

13. So let me get this straight...

Your solution to people stealing online content and journalists losing their jobs because of it is that they should just work for free?
How incredibly generous of you...

[intrepidity]

15. No. I'm pointing to the need for a massive overhaul to the system

Starting with a universal basic income. Why? Because everytime progress or other factors (eg, climate change) threaten to disrupt an entrenched segment of the economy, extraordinary (and frequently exceptionally harmful) measures are sought or taken to preserve the status quo.

I respect your intelligence enough that I won't enumerate the examples.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

17. Okay, so it should be free because there isn't UBI?

Just come out and say you want it for free. It's easier than pretending that climate change is why stealing is okay.

[intrepidity]

18. I hear your pain.

Honestly, I do.

If the admins want to remove this thread and admonish me, well, it won't be my first time.

But, I stand by what I've posted.

[intrepidity]

11. Thanks; and that is just one important aspect of this very complex issue

And you're correct: lies are FREE, FREE, FREE

[AZSkiffyGeek]

14. Oh, so stealing is okay because people lie

Here is the fact. Paywalls pay for journalism. If you aren't willing to pay for journalism, you get bullshit.
And the solution isn't "steal the content" or "they should just work for free" it's "use your fucking money and pay for it."
That dollar a month I pay the Washington Post sure is a burden. Same with the $20 I paid for two years of AZ Central.

The fact is that you don't really care about "truth" and you certainly don't care about journalists, one of the most underpaid jobs in America. You're just cheap.

[intrepidity]

16. I also pay for a WaPo subscription

as well as several others.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

19. So you're willing to pay, but don't think you should?

Your arguments are already going in circles, but after advocating stealing content for free, because of UBI or climate change or some nonsense, now you're playing "I actually do pay."

Whatever...

[intrepidity]

20. ....because I know what it's like to not be able to afford to... nt

[AZSkiffyGeek]

21. I do too...

I did without. It's amazing what you can actually get that doesn't involve theft.

[usonian]

22. Replying to my own post.

The point is that as a creator, YOU should be paid directly by readers, i.e. via some micro-payment.

That point seems to have been missed.

How and why this doesn't work is a tech and social engineering issue beyond the scope here.

Pay YOU and not some (Bezos, Musk, Whoever owns NYT, Murdoch) whose only goal is to make as much money as possible and/or control the conversation for subscription money or ad payments (ads are poison by the way)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/24/advertising-poison-hooked

AND people pay you for QUALITY, not VIRALITY/QUANTITY. There's your dumbing down and poison.

If it's garbage, then the yokels aren't going to pay a micronickel for it. Garbage demands to be free.

Quality allows it, PROVIDING your "editor" or "owner" wouldn't take the lion's share, AND control your content.

Nothing is free. When you see ads You are the Product. But people don't mind spending (micro-nickels) for quality.
IF THEY HAVE A CHANCE.

Damned if I am going to open up 20 different accounts, each one more likely to spill my credit card info than the other.

If you are a quality creator, you deserve to be paid. But the gatekeepers want that damn tap in your veins, all 20, 30, 100 taps.

The old business models survive by brute force and by subverting real positive and liberating change.

Frickin artists have to die before their works are worth anything.

I'd send you a micro-nickel right now but there's NO DAMN WAY that's practical.

Peace,
and have a great day

[CloudWatcher]

23. Pools

I for one don't want to do micro-payments to individuals. I would like to support newspapers to provide some editorial value-added.

What I'd really like to see is my paying for a full subscription to local & national media, and have some percentage of that spread to other newspapers so I could read their local news as well. I.e. a partnership or pool system where everyone gets a fair share.

I don't need (nor want to pay for) a subscription to every small town newspaper. But it'd be nice if I could fully support my local news and have guest-access to a ton of sister sites.

Oh, and I'd gladly pay more for ad-free browsing. Don't get me started on how much I hate them.

[usonian]

24. The internet was supposed to be this one to one thing.

I have always thought that since we pay ISP's a small fortune (quasi-monopolies) then compensation for content (of OUR choice!) should be included in that pile of money. (and not added on!)

Nothing wrong with idealism. Sometimes, we can make good things happen!!

As for ad-free browsing: ublock origin. Purify on iphones. Pay what you want to pay for (like DU).
Ads are a major vector of malware, and triple data usage (my estimate).

Keep your ideas alive. Things are going to change when people on all sides (namely politicians) go after "social media" with pitchforks sharpened. Elon may have stepped into a pit. There is well documented proof that Facebook/Meta deliberately let shit go unchecked. And they all will pay. Moderation is an impossible task, and it goes against the adage "the more clicks the better no matter how toxic"

I have the tech knowledge to create alternatives to toxic stuff. Years worth of notebooks full of good ideas. But if I am a "Woz", I never found the "Jobs" to help make things happen. But I haven't stopped looking and creating.

HOW BAD IS IT, JOHNNY?

Musk wants “most of America” on Twitter

Meanwhile, Musk said on Monday that his goal "with Twitter is to have a service that is as broadly inclusive as possible where ideally most of America is on it and talking."

Twitter says it has an average of 39.6 million daily active users in the US and 189.4 million globally. "Right now it's sort of niche. I want a much bigger percentage of the country to be on it, engaging in dialogue," Musk said.

He wants to own all the conversations.
Apologies if I got off-topic, but it proves that alternatives are DESPERATELY needed.