what's funny is I hear people say they use an adblock so it'll teach people to not use advertising as a source of revenue. When those sites have other means then those same people want to bypass paying. People don't want to pay for stuff and want to have everything too. I fear we will end up in a situation where just few sources of income , content etc will remain ...A monoculture of sorts
It’s not funny when you understand people. Many people would never pay for something if they can avoid or bypass that. Some people would pay for something if it were cheap enough. Some people would pay for something if the payment method is convenient. Some people would pay for something only if it’s both cheap and convenient. We’ve seen with the arrival of dozens of streaming services that people are tired again of paying say $10 here, $10 there and soon it just becomes substantial.
Nobody has cracked the mass market with micro-payments so far (Blendle tried and failed).
So it’s up to the publishers to figure out what works for them and ignore those who will never pay (or stop wasting a lot of time and money on fighting them).
fair enough, people like free stuff and dont like to pay in general. At the end of the day people like getting paid for the work they are doing and people consuming the data, make weak arguments that there are too many services to pay for or its too difficult to pay and prefer stealing.
I’ve got a crazy method of bypassing paywalls - pay for content. I would much rather have a simple transaction where I give companies money and they give me stuff than deal with obtrusive ads - especially on mobile.
It's not that simple. Individual journalists (who need to eat) don't decide on the business model of the publication they work for.
Yes, they are interdependent but just because I want to make sure that writers of my consumed media get paid doesn't mean I have to agree with how the publication model of monitization.
How many paywalls from the around the world would I have to pay for cover the links published in hn/reddit etc?
Why not charge a microtransaction per article or even article section read?
> just because I want to make sure that writers of my consumed media get paid doesn't mean I have to agree with how the publication model of monitization.
You don't have to. Just don't visit these news sites, boycott them, don't visit them.
The employees decided to work for the company knowing the business model in advance.
Yes, they are interdependent but just because I want to make sure that writers of my consumed media get paid doesn't mean I have to agree with how the publication model of monitization.
If I don’t agree with how a company does business, I don’t buy their products. I don’t go into their store and shoplift.
How many paywalls from the around the world would I have to pay for cover the links published in hn/reddit etc?
There are a lot of physical products in the world I see people talk about that I can’t have for free either.
Why not charge a microtransaction per article or even article section read?
Why not use non-tracking ads?
That’s not their business model. Just like I delete any app that doesn’t have the option to disable ads, I can choose not to use a product.
_ The employees decided to work for the company knowing the business model in advance._
I think that's a big assumption.
_If I don’t agree with how a company does business, I don’t buy their products. I don’t go into their store and shoplift._
1. it's too much to have to know about. in the physical world you have a handful of business models, and generally you DON'T get to touch someone's property until there's a transaction or a contract in place. That's not how the web works. I don't know whether I agree or not with a business in advance. It's not reasonable to expect everyone to know how you should engage with a web property ahead of entering their site. All I did is click a link.
2. How is it shoplifting? I was served the bits on clicking a link. I don't like being told how I should use my computers and with the bits I get sent. You don't HAVE to send me any bits.
You’ve actually worked at a company without knowing how the company makes money or at least how it plans to make money?
it's too much to have to know about. in the physical world you have a handful of business models, and general you DON'T get to touch someone's property until there a transaction or a contract in place
I touch products all of the time in computer stores and when I test a car. I get to demo stuff in the real world all of the time.
Unless the company is money laundering or doing something else illegal - can you think of one realistic scenario where someone goes to work everyday and has no idea how their company makes money?
I'd return the bits if the tech and inbox was there. Not sure that's what you intended there.
If it is not a company’s business model to let you try before you buy and has a return policy that is unacceptable - then don’t buy their product. You wouldn’t shoplift it would you?
Let’s say I send bits of data of someone else’s bank account username and password and transfer money to my account. Nothing physical has been taken has it?
If someone sends me bits of inside information about a company and I use that to buy or sell stock, is that wrong?
Concepts don’t automatically change because things happen “on the internet”.
Re: stealing money from homebanking and inside info.
I don't think either of these examples are analogous to what is going on. And even if they did, they are already regulated on specific jurisdictions (not worlwide though). The web is global. WSJ doesn't have to serve to a global audience. It is possible to have global regulation, but I'm not sure it's productive/intelligent to regulate how the technology works worldwide (ie. Regulate what links you can click and which ones you can't. Or regulate the legatity of source code of extension in this example). These are technological problems and should be solved by technology. In my view, they will be solved by technology before any regulation could be in place.
You can trade based on inside information and steal money from anywhere to.
Yes, the paywall is sloppy security. But if the bank had sloppy security and you found scripts on the internet that allowed you to steal passwords, would it be okay to use them?
But closer to this post, what if the extension relied on data breaches and anytime you went to one of the supported sites, it looked up one of the stolen login credentials to let you log in. Would you be okay with that?
> Concepts don’t automatically change because things happen “on the internet”.
There's no magic to the web: it is and always been pages you can access by knowing or finding urls. It's up to servers to decide how to serve things.
I'd propose a better analogy to what publishers are doing on the web: they are renting public billboards, posting contents on them and somehow wanting people to close their eyes or pay to look at them. This is what most (but not all) web is today.
And it doesn't have to be that way. Web3 is hinting at a different world. Not saying it's a better or perfect world but in theory it is one where content owners have more control over who/how they distribute content to.
There's no magic to the web: it is and always been pages you can access by knowing or finding urls. It's up to servers to decide how to serve things.
If that’s the case can I have your bank account user name and password so I can access that over the web? If you don’t want to give it to me, are you okay if I find your login information from one of the data breaches? I promise I won’t break into your house, I’ll just use it to transfer some bits....
Refactored Bypass Paywalls Clean extension (no google analytics)/add-on with lots of new sites (200+ sites + all (custom domains of) Medium), bug-fixes, option to add custom sites and update-notification.
This is a fork of iamadev's extension on github https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome . Is there a specific reason why that's not mentioned and what is different/better about this fork then the original?
iamadamdev has got no clue: 10 of his last commits are all copied from magnolia1234.
Some maintenance is done by other committers, but no real paywall fixes.
I think a future where bit are only sent/received on all parts terms is a fair one, not dystopian in my mind. It's just that we don't have the right technology to enable such granular decision making at micro-level.
Today businesses argue they are forced to serve multiple megabytes of extra stuff no one REALLY cares (all those trackers, etc) because anyone can just go to their site and pull "their proprietary bits". I think this is pretty dystopian already.
