I don’t want an account for each of all the hundreds of news websites referred to on Lemmy.
If they don’t want me to read their stuff without an account then I won’t.
Also, creating an account won’t pay the journalists a cent. Can I pay a monthly subscription that gives me access to ALL news sites, sign me up. I will pay. I don’t think that exists though.
Until then, I guess I’ll have to get by without knowing exactly what hurt Elons’ feelings.
It literally would have been easier to make an account than to type up this comment.
I get that people are jaded by the modern internet being so full of bullshit, with pop-ups or restrictions that want you to enter your email being one prime example. But subscribing or giving money to people who are making real good news is not bullshit.
If you want a real somewhat-more-reasonable solution as opposed to subscribing to 20 different news sources (which issue I can also understand), you can subscribe to a couple of ones from rss.ponder.cat (whether or not they have a paywall), pay them, and then get stories from them and from the rest of Lemmy and be free of the paywall in both locations.
OTOH, your OP here has zero text beyond a link to read something elsewhere, which itself shows only a little bit of text before cutting off. So isn’t the article, and even more so your OP then, an “advertisement” asking people to spend money, in order to read beyond that? (Very unlike https://rss.ponder.cat/post/152359 that has tons of info right there in the post) Yet you paid no money to the Fediverse (in this case this Lemmy.World community) to be able to put this advertising link into people’s feeds?
Setting aside any further moral judgement of good or bad for that (there are truly arguments on both sides, e.g. your intentions were certainly good, which those of us who know you can see is obvious, and it does increase awareness that this article exists to be read, etc.), why isn’t your OP labelled as an ad then? e.g.it could have been titled “[Advertisement, paywalled article] Elon Musk Is Hounded by Haters in Path of Exile 2 Chat”, thereby showing sensitivity to people who may have no job atm and so don’t want to spend money on still yet another news platform? (and also allowed for automated filtering to remove such) And if so, would it have made a difference if you had included more text in your OP, vs. simply putting the link all by itself?
There is complexity here beyond simply right or wrong. I hope you don’t feel that I am attacking you, just trying to help meditate that discussion by explaining more the different POVs that people read this all from.
I think it’s relevant that you can read the article just by signing up. No payment is required. The point that I was making is that wanting everything to be easy (“I don’t want to register, I don’t want to pay $5/month”) is leading to a huge degradation in the quality of news in the modern world, and that’s a huge problem. So I don’t have a lot of sympathy for someone who’s really insisting to me that it’s a problem if everything isn’t easy.
The full text is in that RSS community because 404 Media put the full text into the RSS feed. There are a couple of others that are like that (The Atlantic is one), where using the RSS feed basically bypasses the paywall / registrationwall. Why they do that, I legitimately don’t know. I was just speaking a little more to the principles involved.
I think there are a couple of different community standards as far as posting paywalled content, all the way from banning paywalled articles to allowing them but banning people posting the text. I don’t think most communities consider linking to an article you can’t read because it’s behind a paywall as any kind of violation or just an advertisement, although I’m happy to abide by the standard in places where there is one. But again, I do think it’s relevant that no payment is required to read this particular article.
I do sympathize with someone who doesn’t want to register for 30 different sources to just read articles on Lemmy. Or someone who’s sick of every link that someone clicks leading to a labyrinth of having to sign up or type your email address in. That was why I was offering an alternative that lets them support one or two of these outlets without it being something crazy or unreasonable or constantly inconvenient. Mostly, it just irritates me this kind of entitled mindset where people think the internet owes them everything on a platter and they just need to become demanding if anything ever involves anything on their part other than just showing up and asking for what they want.
I hope I did not overstate my case: I did not downvote you here (the opposite in fact), nor can I recall having done so anywhere else, I am just offering to try to tell that “other side to the story”, to help balance it out.
So, not that I fully espouse this belief myself in any case, here goes: attention is a valuable commodity. So much so that the internet is supported mainly by advertising revenue, so obviously time (aka attention) really IS money! Now here comes your OP (this one, not the RSS feeds, which was a wonderful post, but let’s face it the people downvoting you here likely didn’t check the cross-post to see that it exists) and whether you or the content source make any money at all from the exchange - as you say, accounts are free - it still takes attention. This post has incurred a cost. Mind you, it’s not a monetary one, and I for one have really enjoyed reading it, but even so, it did incur a cost nonetheless.
But it was not labeled as an “ad”. Nor did the post label itself as “[full article available with free account]”. Instead, it was just a link, leaving people to figure out the rest of their own, and then the article teased a few words, then cut off. That’s ANNOYING! 😞 Imagine teasing a hungry person with smells and sight of food - why is that practice considered “okay” in the industry!?
Ahem, regardless, for some of us, with our age and status in life, and knowing the reputation of the sender (you), we decided it was worthwhile (or we read the RSS version:-). But there are kids on this platform, and Gen-Z, and Millennials, and still far-from-retirement Gen-Xers, who have to spend all day working (the mines yearn for our flesh + that of our childrens…), so not everyone is equally receptive to merely seeing a URL as the sole content of a post. Even one that is free, subject to some additional effort required to make an account. But back to the above point, how would someone know that it’s free, until they get far enough in to have been teased, baited based on their click, and then “just know” that THIS is one of the media where if you go ALL the way through the steps of making a free account - signing up to receive spam emails (yet another cost) - THIS particular one is free. Others might also be free only to those who will download an app (which incurs yet another cost: your name, your phone number, the listing of every app that you have installed on the same device, etc.). ALL of this requires “attention”, and people don’t know in advance whether this source is “one of the good ones” (for now… and for how much longer until they change and demand an app installation? Twitter used to not require an account, once upon a time…).
Anyway, they aren’t downvoting the fact that the news source or this article exists, they are using the downvote function as intended: to signal that they believe that your comment has lower relevance to them and others who think like them. Bc it comes across as insensitive to their needs for sleep and relaxation at the end of a day of work, or a quick check of the Threadiverse beforehand, or perhaps on a weekend - anyway they don’t like it.
Maybe you don’t mind that. There’s something to be said for good fences make good neighbors, and PieFed in particular has some fantastic thoughts along those lines e.g. restrictions on voting to only community members rather than people who wander in from All. But whatever, that’s your call, though I wanted to help explain that you could avoid some of that downvoting by putting some labelling into the post, to display sensitivity to those who will refuse to read it otherwise, and save them from having to be baited and then disappointed at having encountered the paywall.
Then again, my posts range from some of the most heavily downvoted to most heavily upvoted (though FAR more often the former:-) that some communities have ever seen, so perhaps you shouldn’t listen to me… except as an example of what not to do?! 🤪
Yeah, I get that. Maybe I inched over too much into the territory of being blaming people for having the understandable reaction. I was sort of hoping for my comments to come across as educational, along the lines of “I know why you react this way and I understand it but have you ever considered…”
I think a lot of the time it stems from people just not having thought it through or not being aware of these issues. But, at the same time, I have had this conversation before more than once and almost universally the reaction is people sort of yelling about it. More or less “IDGAF, I just want what I want and I’m going to whine if anything’s more complicated than me just getting what I want.” Which… that’s not going to lead in a good direction. Especially in terms of punishing news sites if they’re not willing to run unsustainable businesses to give them what they want. Which is why I’m a little more pointed or more insulting about it. But no, it’s not intended from any place other than just sharing my POV on it. Maybe I am too abrasive about it as I am in some other things.
And yes, I fully expected to get downvoted for it. I understand it’s not a popular POV. I’m just saying it for people who are open to it, and also so the people who are not can get exposed to the POV whether or not they absorb it. No one’s really required to agree with me. Just stating what my unpopular opinion is on it, that’s all. I apprecate the other side, too, absolutely, it’s understandable.
Yeah, and also the piracy mindset is quite strong on Lemmy.:-)
You are right: if we do not encourage journalism, then we’ll lose it. Though OTOH that doesn’t excuse the behavior of clickbait media offering something (usually/especially a title) that sounds one way, then when you read the article it ends up being a nothing-burger - so I can understand the piracy mindset as well, for the EXTREMELY rare cases when you might actually want to read something from such a source, and offer that corporate entity precisely the same consideration that they have previously offered to humans.
And too standards change all the time so that a source that used to have like a REPUTATION goes downhill, so there too I can see people not wanting to pay.
But as the Greek stoics taught: we cannot control the entire world, only our responses to it. Like you could post a link not to the article but rather to the RSS, which would sorta make things worse, but allows for an opportunity to put a disclaimer (in advance) that solid journalism needs funding to survive, so if someone enjoys the article then consider paying the source? Well, now it sounds like I’m just trying to tell you what to do here, but I was just trying to find an example of a potential other way that might leave you less frustrated and happier with your experiences on the Fediverse:-).
Your contributions are appreciated… by some (most?) of us at least.👍😁
It’s actually not, you just have to make an account I think.
Pay your journalists! There are other things important in the world than everything being easy.
I don’t want an account for each of all the hundreds of news websites referred to on Lemmy.
If they don’t want me to read their stuff without an account then I won’t.
Also, creating an account won’t pay the journalists a cent. Can I pay a monthly subscription that gives me access to ALL news sites, sign me up. I will pay. I don’t think that exists though.
Until then, I guess I’ll have to get by without knowing exactly what hurt Elons’ feelings.
It literally would have been easier to make an account than to type up this comment.
I get that people are jaded by the modern internet being so full of bullshit, with pop-ups or restrictions that want you to enter your email being one prime example. But subscribing or giving money to people who are making real good news is not bullshit.
If you want a real somewhat-more-reasonable solution as opposed to subscribing to 20 different news sources (which issue I can also understand), you can subscribe to a couple of ones from rss.ponder.cat (whether or not they have a paywall), pay them, and then get stories from them and from the rest of Lemmy and be free of the paywall in both locations.
Not necessarily. Avoid making assumptions about those whose threat model and precautions you know little about.
OTOH, your OP here has zero text beyond a link to read something elsewhere, which itself shows only a little bit of text before cutting off. So isn’t the article, and even more so your OP then, an “advertisement” asking people to spend money, in order to read beyond that? (Very unlike https://rss.ponder.cat/post/152359 that has tons of info right there in the post) Yet you paid no money to the Fediverse (in this case this Lemmy.World community) to be able to put this advertising link into people’s feeds?
Setting aside any further moral judgement of good or bad for that (there are truly arguments on both sides, e.g. your intentions were certainly good, which those of us who know you can see is obvious, and it does increase awareness that this article exists to be read, etc.), why isn’t your OP labelled as an ad then? e.g.it could have been titled “[Advertisement, paywalled article] Elon Musk Is Hounded by Haters in Path of Exile 2 Chat”, thereby showing sensitivity to people who may have no job atm and so don’t want to spend money on still yet another news platform? (and also allowed for automated filtering to remove such) And if so, would it have made a difference if you had included more text in your OP, vs. simply putting the link all by itself?
There is complexity here beyond simply right or wrong. I hope you don’t feel that I am attacking you, just trying to help meditate that discussion by explaining more the different POVs that people read this all from.
I think it’s relevant that you can read the article just by signing up. No payment is required. The point that I was making is that wanting everything to be easy (“I don’t want to register, I don’t want to pay $5/month”) is leading to a huge degradation in the quality of news in the modern world, and that’s a huge problem. So I don’t have a lot of sympathy for someone who’s really insisting to me that it’s a problem if everything isn’t easy.
The full text is in that RSS community because 404 Media put the full text into the RSS feed. There are a couple of others that are like that (The Atlantic is one), where using the RSS feed basically bypasses the paywall / registrationwall. Why they do that, I legitimately don’t know. I was just speaking a little more to the principles involved.
I think there are a couple of different community standards as far as posting paywalled content, all the way from banning paywalled articles to allowing them but banning people posting the text. I don’t think most communities consider linking to an article you can’t read because it’s behind a paywall as any kind of violation or just an advertisement, although I’m happy to abide by the standard in places where there is one. But again, I do think it’s relevant that no payment is required to read this particular article.
I do sympathize with someone who doesn’t want to register for 30 different sources to just read articles on Lemmy. Or someone who’s sick of every link that someone clicks leading to a labyrinth of having to sign up or type your email address in. That was why I was offering an alternative that lets them support one or two of these outlets without it being something crazy or unreasonable or constantly inconvenient. Mostly, it just irritates me this kind of entitled mindset where people think the internet owes them everything on a platter and they just need to become demanding if anything ever involves anything on their part other than just showing up and asking for what they want.
I hope I did not overstate my case: I did not downvote you here (the opposite in fact), nor can I recall having done so anywhere else, I am just offering to try to tell that “other side to the story”, to help balance it out.
So, not that I fully espouse this belief myself in any case, here goes: attention is a valuable commodity. So much so that the internet is supported mainly by advertising revenue, so obviously time (aka attention) really IS money! Now here comes your OP (this one, not the RSS feeds, which was a wonderful post, but let’s face it the people downvoting you here likely didn’t check the cross-post to see that it exists) and whether you or the content source make any money at all from the exchange - as you say, accounts are free - it still takes attention. This post has incurred a cost. Mind you, it’s not a monetary one, and I for one have really enjoyed reading it, but even so, it did incur a cost nonetheless.
But it was not labeled as an “ad”. Nor did the post label itself as “[full article available with free account]”. Instead, it was just a link, leaving people to figure out the rest of their own, and then the article teased a few words, then cut off. That’s ANNOYING! 😞 Imagine teasing a hungry person with smells and sight of food - why is that practice considered “okay” in the industry!?
Ahem, regardless, for some of us, with our age and status in life, and knowing the reputation of the sender (you), we decided it was worthwhile (or we read the RSS version:-). But there are kids on this platform, and Gen-Z, and Millennials, and still far-from-retirement Gen-Xers, who have to spend all day working (the mines yearn for our flesh + that of our childrens…), so not everyone is equally receptive to merely seeing a URL as the sole content of a post. Even one that is free, subject to some additional effort required to make an account. But back to the above point, how would someone know that it’s free, until they get far enough in to have been teased, baited based on their click, and then “just know” that THIS is one of the media where if you go ALL the way through the steps of making a free account - signing up to receive spam emails (yet another cost) - THIS particular one is free. Others might also be free only to those who will download an app (which incurs yet another cost: your name, your phone number, the listing of every app that you have installed on the same device, etc.). ALL of this requires “attention”, and people don’t know in advance whether this source is “one of the good ones” (for now… and for how much longer until they change and demand an app installation? Twitter used to not require an account, once upon a time…).
Anyway, they aren’t downvoting the fact that the news source or this article exists, they are using the downvote function as intended: to signal that they believe that your comment has lower relevance to them and others who think like them. Bc it comes across as insensitive to their needs for sleep and relaxation at the end of a day of work, or a quick check of the Threadiverse beforehand, or perhaps on a weekend - anyway they don’t like it.
Maybe you don’t mind that. There’s something to be said for good fences make good neighbors, and PieFed in particular has some fantastic thoughts along those lines e.g. restrictions on voting to only community members rather than people who wander in from All. But whatever, that’s your call, though I wanted to help explain that you could avoid some of that downvoting by putting some labelling into the post, to display sensitivity to those who will refuse to read it otherwise, and save them from having to be baited and then disappointed at having encountered the paywall.
Then again, my posts range from some of the most heavily downvoted to most heavily upvoted (though FAR more often the former:-) that some communities have ever seen, so perhaps you shouldn’t listen to me… except as an example of what not to do?! 🤪
Yeah, I get that. Maybe I inched over too much into the territory of being blaming people for having the understandable reaction. I was sort of hoping for my comments to come across as educational, along the lines of “I know why you react this way and I understand it but have you ever considered…”
I think a lot of the time it stems from people just not having thought it through or not being aware of these issues. But, at the same time, I have had this conversation before more than once and almost universally the reaction is people sort of yelling about it. More or less “IDGAF, I just want what I want and I’m going to whine if anything’s more complicated than me just getting what I want.” Which… that’s not going to lead in a good direction. Especially in terms of punishing news sites if they’re not willing to run unsustainable businesses to give them what they want. Which is why I’m a little more pointed or more insulting about it. But no, it’s not intended from any place other than just sharing my POV on it. Maybe I am too abrasive about it as I am in some other things.
And yes, I fully expected to get downvoted for it. I understand it’s not a popular POV. I’m just saying it for people who are open to it, and also so the people who are not can get exposed to the POV whether or not they absorb it. No one’s really required to agree with me. Just stating what my unpopular opinion is on it, that’s all. I apprecate the other side, too, absolutely, it’s understandable.
Yeah, and also the piracy mindset is quite strong on Lemmy.:-)
You are right: if we do not encourage journalism, then we’ll lose it. Though OTOH that doesn’t excuse the behavior of clickbait media offering something (usually/especially a title) that sounds one way, then when you read the article it ends up being a nothing-burger - so I can understand the piracy mindset as well, for the EXTREMELY rare cases when you might actually want to read something from such a source, and offer that corporate entity precisely the same consideration that they have previously offered to humans.
And too standards change all the time so that a source that used to have like a REPUTATION goes downhill, so there too I can see people not wanting to pay.
But as the Greek stoics taught: we cannot control the entire world, only our responses to it. Like you could post a link not to the article but rather to the RSS, which would sorta make things worse, but allows for an opportunity to put a disclaimer (in advance) that solid journalism needs funding to survive, so if someone enjoys the article then consider paying the source? Well, now it sounds like I’m just trying to tell you what to do here, but I was just trying to find an example of a potential other way that might leave you less frustrated and happier with your experiences on the Fediverse:-).
Your contributions are appreciated… by some (most?) of us at least.👍😁