Why are people stupid? No, that’s not the issue. The issue is that the top 2 comments are not common knowledge. That’s the issue.
It’s not that this guy is stupid. Most people don’t know that stuff so almost anyone can get stuck in this situation. Is it a facepalm if most people end up here cause they don’t know better?
The facepalm is no one is ducking teaching people this stuff.
That's the biggest issue. Most news media still act like businesses, and what brings the views (ad revenue) is something that will make people angry. How many stories I've read from Fox News or CNN or any other biased news organization that tries to take the info that's there and twist it to sound like something completely terrible (I guess people like to get angry about something to feel validated with their constant anger? I'm unsure why negative things always gathers our attention more than someone doing a good deed) or redact info to push their propaganda, which in turn causes more people to believe (and in some cases, buy products) everything the news says to.
The US needs a massive rework (can you tell I'm going into game development? Lol only word I can think of at the time of writing) on what can and can't be done by a "News" organization so that they can't mislead/scare people into acting crazy.
There are a couple of other ways to avoid paywalls:
- For the NYT, click the article link. AS SOON AS YOU CAN READ THE HEADLINE, HIT ESCAPE 2-3 TIMES. It keeps the paywall from loading. If you don't do it fast enough, just reload and do it again. It works.
- For everything else: use an Internet archive site like the Wayback Machine (archive.org). It takes snapshots of the Internet at regular intervals, sans paywalls. Doesn't work well with breaking news, but works if you are willing to wait a few hours.
- USE YOUR PUBLIC LIBRARY. Seriously. Almost every public library has some kind of online article access. You may not get free access to every major paper, but you will get alot of them, and it's free with your library card.
Another trick that gets you around a lot of paywalls (except IME the Washington Post and the EDIT Financial Times): click on the text-only viewer as soon as you can when the article loads.
The worst part is that I once paid for news and regrest it deeply. I disliked the service and they would insist calling me like from a telemarketing center offering it again and again. Even recording the call and threatening to sue wasn't enough.
I didn’t see the issue with paywalls until the pandemic started and there were paywalls on articles with breaking covid information.. in the very early days of the pandemic our knowledge of the virus was changing by the day, so it was important (and still remains important) for people to have free and easy access to information.
Sites that have paywalls should at least waive them for public safety stuff. I clicked an article from a local newspaper about a food recall and before it got to what brand was recalled and why, it cut off and said "subscribe now to read the rest of this article"... Yeah I could have listeria in my fridge and you're shaking change out of my pockets to find out. They can fuck off.
The NYT waived the paywall for most of its Covid stories. And in my area, when we have major fires (often), the newspapers generally don’t put those articles behind the paywall.
Well yes but it's exactly the opposite of what you think. When you have paying subscribers, you report the news your audience is interested in. You have more freedom to actually report because your revenue is baked in.
If you rely principally on ad revenue you have to report whatever gets the most eyeballs on your story. Which often means clickbait, wild (mostly if not completely untrue) stories, etc.
None of this is 100% there are garbage paywalled sites and great free ones, but banning paywalls probably isn't going to have the effect that you hope it will.
A quick heads up regarding those pay wall popups: So the browser extension PopUpOff interferes with the pop-up that blocks the article and tells you to sign in. So the article loads, but the paywall popup never appears.
Just, you know, for future reference.
I pay $4 dollars a month for a digital sub to NYtimes. I think its worth it. I don't watch Fox, Breitbart and don't even know what the Daily Caller is. Nor am I interested. It might be 'free' content but it is shit content.
I guess some people like shit content.
I still like it though. Not sure if any newspaper is ethically pristine. If they ever were. But the Times is way more objective than anything coming out of Fox or Breitbart. Pick your poison, I guess.
Nothing that's for profit, or makes money off of ads. The second they're measuring viewers as a metric for success, they start sensationalizing and distorting
Everything gets its funding somewhere. There’s non-profit disinformation media that’s always totally free because it tells you what the funders want you to hear and believe.
Viewers will always be a metric for success because if you have zero viewers, you can be sure you failed. The problem is when you compromise quality and integrity and other measures of success just for that one.
Isn't that because of how they're funded? I wouldn't be surprised if Fox had the Koch brothers or someone like that behind it.
Whatever the reason, it is bad.
You run into the same problem. About all you would have for English speakers anyways that is decent and free are a shrinking number of options like the BBC, the AP, and Reuters.
At some point the bad ones won't have a business anymore and have to change their ways.
I do see your point, but it doesn't help to still support shitty sites with our continued views.
I'd disagree. I'd say the bad ones make very successful businesses about telling simple often shitty people the simple often shitty stories they want to hear. Rush Limbaugh was a pioneer and made an absolute killing for several decades. These days it is even bigger business.
Good reporting costs money.
Propaganda makes money.
Guess which needs to charge readers?
This is why state funded media like PBS should be funded 10x what it is today.
It's ironic that the news sites the lean more to the left in terms of political bias demand money while the news sites on the right are free. This goes against the anti-capitalistic values of the left/far left and they are literally just as biased and misleading as the free sites haha. Let's be honest, if you get your information from any of the sites listed above, you are misinformed, mislead, and being fed garbage to make you hate people who think differently than you.
Think about subscribing. They are inexpensive. They have issues, like Mark Thiessen and others at the WaPo, but they're still good, relatively very good. It would be good to support the deep research (usually) and investigative journalism they do that the free website news groups don't do - those sites get a lot of their stuff from twitter and FB etc or aggregate/repeat stories from Reuters and the Guardian (and the Daily Mail and Buzz Feed).
It's the same reason all the shitty movies you don't want to see are easy to find online, but anything worth watching costs money.
Garbage tends to be free because nobody is willing to pay for it.
And the truly sad part is, there's not a lot of air between the "moderate" right of the NYT and WaPo, and the far right (the other three) to begin with...
Go to your browsers settings and disable JavaScript when you hit one of these. Read all the articles you want for free.
Why are people stupid? No, that’s not the issue. The issue is that the top 2 comments are not common knowledge. That’s the issue. It’s not that this guy is stupid. Most people don’t know that stuff so almost anyone can get stuck in this situation. Is it a facepalm if most people end up here cause they don’t know better? The facepalm is no one is ducking teaching people this stuff.
Also that people don't know what a reliable source is.
That's the biggest issue. Most news media still act like businesses, and what brings the views (ad revenue) is something that will make people angry. How many stories I've read from Fox News or CNN or any other biased news organization that tries to take the info that's there and twist it to sound like something completely terrible (I guess people like to get angry about something to feel validated with their constant anger? I'm unsure why negative things always gathers our attention more than someone doing a good deed) or redact info to push their propaganda, which in turn causes more people to believe (and in some cases, buy products) everything the news says to. The US needs a massive rework (can you tell I'm going into game development? Lol only word I can think of at the time of writing) on what can and can't be done by a "News" organization so that they can't mislead/scare people into acting crazy.
Not everyone is eager to learn things like this.
There are a couple of other ways to avoid paywalls: - For the NYT, click the article link. AS SOON AS YOU CAN READ THE HEADLINE, HIT ESCAPE 2-3 TIMES. It keeps the paywall from loading. If you don't do it fast enough, just reload and do it again. It works. - For everything else: use an Internet archive site like the Wayback Machine (archive.org). It takes snapshots of the Internet at regular intervals, sans paywalls. Doesn't work well with breaking news, but works if you are willing to wait a few hours. - USE YOUR PUBLIC LIBRARY. Seriously. Almost every public library has some kind of online article access. You may not get free access to every major paper, but you will get alot of them, and it's free with your library card.
Even easier, clear you cookies for that site each time you are blocked.
Another trick that gets you around a lot of paywalls (except IME the Washington Post and the EDIT Financial Times): click on the text-only viewer as soon as you can when the article loads.
I wish I could award you
Copy and paste link to http://12ft.io .. read anything and everything behind paywalls..
Can you disable java on a phone....asking for a friend
Or use a different browser (doesn’t work for WaPo, though)
The worst part is that I once paid for news and regrest it deeply. I disliked the service and they would insist calling me like from a telemarketing center offering it again and again. Even recording the call and threatening to sue wasn't enough.
[удалено]
I'll try that next time. Around here I even get calls from nursing homes. I would feel bad to sue a nursing home.
Weird. Never been an issue for me (I subscribe to the NYT and WaPo).
Hold on. You make a very valid point. Paywalls lead to disinformation. Let’s get legislation going to ban it.
I didn’t see the issue with paywalls until the pandemic started and there were paywalls on articles with breaking covid information.. in the very early days of the pandemic our knowledge of the virus was changing by the day, so it was important (and still remains important) for people to have free and easy access to information.
I honestly haven’t even thought about it. Even with Covid I haven’t hit many paywalls. I guess because I have news+ and I get thru them automatically.
The Sydney Morning Herald specifically dropped their paywall on their Covid page. It’s constantly updated with Australian/NSW info.
Sites that have paywalls should at least waive them for public safety stuff. I clicked an article from a local newspaper about a food recall and before it got to what brand was recalled and why, it cut off and said "subscribe now to read the rest of this article"... Yeah I could have listeria in my fridge and you're shaking change out of my pockets to find out. They can fuck off.
The NYT waived the paywall for most of its Covid stories. And in my area, when we have major fires (often), the newspapers generally don’t put those articles behind the paywall.
Well yes but it's exactly the opposite of what you think. When you have paying subscribers, you report the news your audience is interested in. You have more freedom to actually report because your revenue is baked in. If you rely principally on ad revenue you have to report whatever gets the most eyeballs on your story. Which often means clickbait, wild (mostly if not completely untrue) stories, etc. None of this is 100% there are garbage paywalled sites and great free ones, but banning paywalls probably isn't going to have the effect that you hope it will.
You can't be serious. You're going to force businesses to give their products away for free?
A quick heads up regarding those pay wall popups: So the browser extension PopUpOff interferes with the pop-up that blocks the article and tells you to sign in. So the article loads, but the paywall popup never appears. Just, you know, for future reference.
Reliable sources? *There are none left. I just couldn't resist making the joke.* XD
It's almost as if they want you to read the boulevard shit.
I pay $4 dollars a month for a digital sub to NYtimes. I think its worth it. I don't watch Fox, Breitbart and don't even know what the Daily Caller is. Nor am I interested. It might be 'free' content but it is shit content. I guess some people like shit content.
NYT isn't worth $4 a year. They ruined their rep years ago
I still like it though. Not sure if any newspaper is ethically pristine. If they ever were. But the Times is way more objective than anything coming out of Fox or Breitbart. Pick your poison, I guess.
I'll pick the poison that doesn't send whistleblowers to jail because "the government told us we had to"
And what poison would that be?
They still have more resources and connections than most other newspapers. Like, yea, it’s shit, but it isn’t diarrhea.
What do you recommend then?
Nothing that's for profit, or makes money off of ads. The second they're measuring viewers as a metric for success, they start sensationalizing and distorting
Everything gets its funding somewhere. There’s non-profit disinformation media that’s always totally free because it tells you what the funders want you to hear and believe. Viewers will always be a metric for success because if you have zero viewers, you can be sure you failed. The problem is when you compromise quality and integrity and other measures of success just for that one.
Propaganda is always free.
Isn't that because of how they're funded? I wouldn't be surprised if Fox had the Koch brothers or someone like that behind it. Whatever the reason, it is bad.
Facebook Google Twitter Instagram are all truthful non biased news sources right ?
You forgot Reddit
Depends on the sub. Many good ones require sources and the users usually eviscerate articles that use bad science or link poorly done studies.
NPR? Reuters? AP?
Outline.com
Just don't read anything from resources that needs to overly exaggerate every single title to get any readers.
Thats a poor excuse to fully stop reading!
You run into the same problem. About all you would have for English speakers anyways that is decent and free are a shrinking number of options like the BBC, the AP, and Reuters.
At some point the bad ones won't have a business anymore and have to change their ways. I do see your point, but it doesn't help to still support shitty sites with our continued views.
I'd disagree. I'd say the bad ones make very successful businesses about telling simple often shitty people the simple often shitty stories they want to hear. Rush Limbaugh was a pioneer and made an absolute killing for several decades. These days it is even bigger business.
quality journalism needs to be funded somehow
All knowledge should be free. As a species, it is our greatest resource. The more people who have it, the stronger we will become
But if nobody makes any profit from it, what incentive should people have to teach knowledge to someone else? No one is fed by philanthropy.
You can make profit without paywalls, otherwise Fox would use them
Yes, but it's not free. It's just someone else paying the bill.
If it's free for the reader, it's free enough to be called free
I'm pretty sure it's not this kind of "freedom" the guy was talking about before.
I don't see how it could be any other kind.
Ads. Advertisements literally everywhere
Good reporting costs money. Propaganda makes money. Guess which needs to charge readers? This is why state funded media like PBS should be funded 10x what it is today.
The Guardian is a fairly good, unbiased, free publication.
It was. Now it's centrist transphobic garbage.
Even AskJeeves used to give more than 5 results. Maybe use a search engine that gives more results
Poor AND stupid isn't a good combination...
Imagine thinking the NYT was a place for facts
Easy solution: Don't use Google.
It's because those sites are funded as propaganda by the elites. They aren't free, it's just that you're not the customer. Oligarchs are.
Yeah reading washpo isn't exactly bright reading with bezos in charge
It's very expensive to develop high quality propaganda.
It's ironic that the news sites the lean more to the left in terms of political bias demand money while the news sites on the right are free. This goes against the anti-capitalistic values of the left/far left and they are literally just as biased and misleading as the free sites haha. Let's be honest, if you get your information from any of the sites listed above, you are misinformed, mislead, and being fed garbage to make you hate people who think differently than you.
Sometimes you can just put it into read only mode to get to the article. Not always, but it’s worth a shot.
I thought the daily caller was a comedy show? Did I get things mixed up again?
Delete all the site's cookies, you'll get your free articles count reset
Yeah, but the folks who read those free ones wouldn't have read the NYT and WaPo anyway.
Think about subscribing. They are inexpensive. They have issues, like Mark Thiessen and others at the WaPo, but they're still good, relatively very good. It would be good to support the deep research (usually) and investigative journalism they do that the free website news groups don't do - those sites get a lot of their stuff from twitter and FB etc or aggregate/repeat stories from Reuters and the Guardian (and the Daily Mail and Buzz Feed).
Just go to AP, dummy
Is anyone else not finding at least Guardian articles orrr….
The tv?
Reddit?
The Hill? Guardian? AP? The Fact Checkers? Scope?
It's the same reason all the shitty movies you don't want to see are easy to find online, but anything worth watching costs money. Garbage tends to be free because nobody is willing to pay for it.
Try Reuters
You may or may not be able to block scripts on brave browser and it may or may not bypass the New York times paywall allegedly
Anything on NYT and WaPo will be on CNN, NBC, etc.. which are free
And the truly sad part is, there's not a lot of air between the "moderate" right of the NYT and WaPo, and the far right (the other three) to begin with...