zlacker

[flagged]

>>rainco+(OP)
>But since copyright is evil (when it's not mine) and content creators aren't worth their salt (if they're not me) so it's okay to do that.

This is a disingenuous generalization.

>>rainco+(OP)
As a journalist, I defend the habit of sharing archive links. Paywalls are a lazy and detrimental solution to a larger financial problem for media organizations. They limit the access to information to a specific subset of people, and let misinformation run wild and free.

So yes, sharing the article is important in this case. If there was, say, a 300$ per year global subscription to a 100 of publications, I'm also sure 90% of hacker news would buy it.

>>rainco+(OP)
I always thought some of the people posting the archive links were shills for the people running that site (it’s monetized with ads) — brilliant strategy.

>>camill+p
> If there was, say, a 300$ per year global subscription to a 100 of publications, I'm also sure 90% of hacker news would buy it.

No one is going to pay $300/yr to read news articles online.

But even people do that, by your logic it's just limiting the access to information to a specific group of those who are able and willing to pay $300/yr to read news.

>>rainco+Z
I assure you that many people spend $300 annually on news and journalism.

>>hardwa+I
I'd be disappointed to learn that anyone who's been longer on HN than about five minutes wasn't using an adblocker.

That said, this is a valuable service. If I were ever willing to consider turning off an adblocker anywhere, this would be where I'd start.

>>rainco+(OP)
Well there is more content than eyeballs at this point, an exponentially rising gap between the two you could say. So according to economic theory when production outpaces consumption what happens to the value and price of whats produced?

>>rainco+(OP)
We can't have a discussion on a link behind a paywall. That's what the comments section inside your paywall is for.

If a link is posted here and requires a subscription, how does that further the conversation you are intending by posting the link?

I want real humans paid for their efforts! If that is the primary concern then we shouldn't be posting non-public links into a public forum for discussion?

>>camill+p
This kind of already exists with Apple News+. Not sure how well that is going but if anyone has the reach to make this work it would be Apple.

Personally I am for anything that can decouple advertising from reporting. There are just too many perverse incentives that it creates.

>>throwa+g3
Ah, but that’s not the only way —- backlinks, people copying the link and sharing it on social media, and mentioning the site all grow traffic immensely, and some of that traffic won’t have ad blockers :)

IIRC one of the sites still has a “buy me a coffee” link, as if the owner needs it.