I posted a brief comment about this the other day (which I'll just re-quote here): It's not Tildes's responsibility to circumvent paywalls for you, and I don't think circumvention should be...
The source should always be linked when possible. I pay for multiple sites that have paywalls, and so do thousands or millions of other people, depending on the site. If you don't, there are generally a lot of options for circumventing the paywall (as I mentioned, adding "outline.com/" in front of the url is easy and tends to work), but we shouldn't link to blogspam instead of the actual source.
It's not Tildes's responsibility to circumvent paywalls for you, and I don't think circumvention should be treated as the default. It's important to credit and support the sites that are writing the original stories, not the ones that leech off that work.
For example, I submitted this New Yorker article earlier. I've seen tons of other sites pulling small sections out of that article today and making their own "articles" out of them (just one example), with some sites even generating multiple pieces from different sections of that single source. Those aren't the ones we should be submitting (unless they add significant additional information), it should be the original source.
Edit: to emphasize this, I just took a look at /r/politics. Currently, out of the top 10 posts, 6 of them are based on excerpts from this New Yorker story, but the New Yorker story itself is #14.
This. So very this. When I stumble across a news article or pop-science write-up or opinion piece in my local regular news reading that I think would be great content for Tildes, I go out of my...
It's important to credit and support the sites that are writing the original stories, not the ones that leech off that work.
This. So very this. When I stumble across a news article or pop-science write-up or opinion piece in my local regular news reading that I think would be great content for Tildes, I go out of my way to track down the original source (or as close as I can get) to post here.
Agreed with your thoughts here. I'm always in favor of paywall circumvention, but the implementation of that is not anyone else's responsibility but my own. I think tagging paywalled content on...
Agreed with your thoughts here. I'm always in favor of paywall circumvention, but the implementation of that is not anyone else's responsibility but my own.
I think tagging paywalled content on Tildes would be a good courtesy for posters/moderators though. It would be nice to have that indicated in a standard way without requiring a click. Especially if that tag rendered a post with a badge or subtle highlight to make it stand out a bit more. Nothing major, but I doubt most people read all a link's tags before clicking (and they shouldn't need to). If content is inaccessible to some, at least indicating that visibly on the front page would be a service.
It's possible, but tricky because there are so many variables. Like I said, I pay for multiple sites but don't pay for others, so for me, a certain set of "paywall" sites aren't walled and others...
It's possible, but tricky because there are so many variables. Like I said, I pay for multiple sites but don't pay for others, so for me, a certain set of "paywall" sites aren't walled and others are, and having them all flagged would be a little weird. I'm sure other people have a different set.
The severity of paywalls also varies, some sites allow people past the paywall very easily where they're closer to a technicality than an obstacle. Other sites completely block non-subscribers.
So I don't know. I do want to allow people to filter out topics from particular domains, but I don't know if that's applicable to this. I'm not sure if people would just want to entirely filter out certain paywalled sites.
Yeah, many news sites are also "soft" paywalled, allowing users a limited amount of article views per month (often tracked by IP but sometimes other methods like cookies) and the paywall doesn't...
Yeah, many news sites are also "soft" paywalled, allowing users a limited amount of article views per month (often tracked by IP but sometimes other methods like cookies) and the paywall doesn't actually go up until they go above that number, which the vast majority of users will not (unless they are using a VPN or shared IP). Some only have paywalls for readers outside their region. Some disable paywalls based on referrer. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Keeping track of all the sites that are paywalled in all the various forms would be a lot of work for very little gain, especially since outline.com and various other trivial workarounds exist for people already.
We could create a set of "paywall" tags, such as "paywall.hard", "paywall.soft", "paywall.geoblock", and so on. The basic tag could be "paywall", which could be used by default on all paywalled...
We could create a set of "paywall" tags, such as "paywall.hard", "paywall.soft", "paywall.geoblock", and so on. The basic tag could be "paywall", which could be used by default on all paywalled articles, but the more detailed tags would be available for people to apply optionally if they want to.
Alternatively, what about including the source in the tag? eg. paywall.nyt for New York Times. Filtering via tags then allows opting into/out of specific sites that you've subscribed to....
Alternatively, what about including the source in the tag? eg. paywall.nyt for New York Times. Filtering via tags then allows opting into/out of specific sites that you've subscribed to.
Potentially redundant with the url already being there, but this would work with existing systems.
The source is already included in the domain. And Deimos has said "I do want to allow people to filter out topics from particular domains", so he's going to add a filtering ability for domains. I...
The source is already included in the domain. And Deimos has said "I do want to allow people to filter out topics from particular domains", so he's going to add a filtering ability for domains. I think it would be redundant to include this in the "paywall" tag.
And, if people want to filter out the New York Times in the short term, it's probably better to do that via a separate tag. I've noticed that some people are already adding tags to indicate domains/sources. If someone wants to filter out the New York Times, they can do so via those tags (if we all apply them consistently). We don't need to roll up "source" and "paywall status" into the same tag; there's plenty of scope to run these as two separate tags.
If tildes hosted software that circumvented paywalls, and used this software to offer the content to its own users, I suspect tildes and/or its creators would be exposed to legal risk. I recommend...
If tildes hosted software that circumvented paywalls, and used this software to offer the content to its own users, I suspect tildes and/or its creators would be exposed to legal risk. I recommend against this approach. I am not a lawyer.
I'm sure it continues to operate through obscurity. Many sites continue to work in legal grey areas, until they hit a critical mass of popularity, then the lawyers come calling.
I'm sure it continues to operate through obscurity. Many sites continue to work in legal grey areas, until they hit a critical mass of popularity, then the lawyers come calling.
Given that we're on a website which aggregates content from scores of sources around the world, it's a bit impractical for any single Tilder to subscribe to all of them. I subscribe to a local...
Given that we're on a website which aggregates content from scores of sources around the world, it's a bit impractical for any single Tilder to subscribe to all of them.
I subscribe to a local reputable news organisation here in Australia, but I'm not going to subscribe to all the sources that get posted to Tildes.
Then, honestly, you shouldn't be reading those sites. You shouldn't sneak into a movie theater because you can't afford to see the ticket. This is basically the same idea.
I try to get things legit if l can, but subbing to 10 different sites doesn't work for me.
Then, honestly, you shouldn't be reading those sites. You shouldn't sneak into a movie theater because you can't afford to see the ticket. This is basically the same idea.
I can't subscribe to all the sites that people post here on Tildes. It's just not practical. I subscribe to a news site here in Australia, but I can't subscribe to all the news sites around the world.
Then, honestly, you shouldn't be reading those sites.
I can't subscribe to all the sites that people post here on Tildes. It's just not practical. I subscribe to a news site here in Australia, but I can't subscribe to all the news sites around the world.
this is a bad take. i get the desire for people to be paid for their work (as they should be), but people should also be able to read accurate, well sourced, detailed news without being prevented...
Then, honestly, you shouldn't be reading those sites.
this is a bad take. i get the desire for people to be paid for their work (as they should be), but people should also be able to read accurate, well sourced, detailed news without being prevented from accessing it just because they can't fork over 4 dollars a month to every major news outlet in america. whether you agree or not, demanding people pay up or go fuck themselves can and will only fuck over all but the biggest name news media in the long run if things continue as they are. it simply is not a sustainable model.
That's a fairly strong reading of the parent's comment. Regarding sustainable models, it seems that the previous approach wasn't working either which is why news sites are now trying paywalls. It...
demanding people pay up or go fuck themselves
That's a fairly strong reading of the parent's comment.
Regarding sustainable models, it seems that the previous approach wasn't working either which is why news sites are now trying paywalls. It may or may not sustain, but they need to be trying something new.
I never said people should go fuck themselves if they can’t afford to pay for a site. In a (different comment on this...
I never said people should go fuck themselves if they can’t afford to pay for a site.
In a (different comment on this thread)[https://tildes.net/~tildes/b1e/whats_the_stance_on_paywalls_here#comment-2riw], I said this:
I agree that I'd prefer if people just posted links to non-paywalled sites and ones that did their own original reporting without a paywall.
The goal should be that we use non-paywall sites that do their own reporting and don’t just copy and paste large chunks from paywall sites. Paywalled sites should be a last resort for a publicly shared site like this.
I'd prefer if people posted articles that weren't behind paywalls, but it skeeves me out to link to services which are just copying the content and reposting it. I work at a newspaper that charges...
I'd prefer if people posted articles that weren't behind paywalls, but it skeeves me out to link to services which are just copying the content and reposting it. I work at a newspaper that charges for subscriptions. Those subscriptions, plus advertising, are how we afford to make the articles available. Don't do an end-run around it. Either pay for the subscription if you want to read the article, or don't read the article.
I agree that I'd prefer if people just posted links to non-paywalled sites and ones that did their own original reporting without a paywall. But sites like that are few and far between. And that...
I agree that I'd prefer if people just posted links to non-paywalled sites and ones that did their own original reporting without a paywall. But sites like that are few and far between. And that number is shrinking every day. A large majority of articles (especially in the tech circle) are just reposts/rewrites of articles from other sites.
It's a company/news organizations prerogative to charge for content. You can't expect everyone to just make their content available for free and somehow make a sustainable profit off of it. And I hate the idea of using software that skirts around paywalls.
Maybe a good compromise would be to have sites that are known to have paywalls (like WSJ) flagged in some way?
Way off topic... let me know if you prefer a PM. As someone who, for some reason, got a graduate degree in journalism but went into software engineering...how's it going? I'm a bit curious if the...
Way off topic... let me know if you prefer a PM.
As someone who, for some reason, got a graduate degree in journalism but went into software engineering...how's it going? I'm a bit curious if the grass is greener.
I posted a brief comment about this the other day (which I'll just re-quote here):
It's not Tildes's responsibility to circumvent paywalls for you, and I don't think circumvention should be treated as the default. It's important to credit and support the sites that are writing the original stories, not the ones that leech off that work.
For example, I submitted this New Yorker article earlier. I've seen tons of other sites pulling small sections out of that article today and making their own "articles" out of them (just one example), with some sites even generating multiple pieces from different sections of that single source. Those aren't the ones we should be submitting (unless they add significant additional information), it should be the original source.
Edit: to emphasize this, I just took a look at /r/politics. Currently, out of the top 10 posts, 6 of them are based on excerpts from this New Yorker story, but the New Yorker story itself is #14.
Also, as mentioned by @bike, the site itself really can't encourage it. It's not a topic I've followed closely so I don't know the current state, but the legality of circumventing paywalls in Canada is iffy and it's previously been considered a violation of copyright law, so it would be risky to build in any "official" methods of circumventing them, such as putting an outline.com link on every topic (as some people have previously suggested).
This. So very this. When I stumble across a news article or pop-science write-up or opinion piece in my local regular news reading that I think would be great content for Tildes, I go out of my way to track down the original source (or as close as I can get) to post here.
Agreed with your thoughts here. I'm always in favor of paywall circumvention, but the implementation of that is not anyone else's responsibility but my own.
I think tagging paywalled content on Tildes would be a good courtesy for posters/moderators though. It would be nice to have that indicated in a standard way without requiring a click. Especially if that tag rendered a post with a badge or subtle highlight to make it stand out a bit more. Nothing major, but I doubt most people read all a link's tags before clicking (and they shouldn't need to). If content is inaccessible to some, at least indicating that visibly on the front page would be a service.
It's possible, but tricky because there are so many variables. Like I said, I pay for multiple sites but don't pay for others, so for me, a certain set of "paywall" sites aren't walled and others are, and having them all flagged would be a little weird. I'm sure other people have a different set.
The severity of paywalls also varies, some sites allow people past the paywall very easily where they're closer to a technicality than an obstacle. Other sites completely block non-subscribers.
So I don't know. I do want to allow people to filter out topics from particular domains, but I don't know if that's applicable to this. I'm not sure if people would just want to entirely filter out certain paywalled sites.
Yeah, many news sites are also "soft" paywalled, allowing users a limited amount of article views per month (often tracked by IP but sometimes other methods like cookies) and the paywall doesn't actually go up until they go above that number, which the vast majority of users will not (unless they are using a VPN or shared IP). Some only have paywalls for readers outside their region. Some disable paywalls based on referrer. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Keeping track of all the sites that are paywalled in all the various forms would be a lot of work for very little gain, especially since outline.com and various other trivial workarounds exist for people already.
We could create a set of "paywall" tags, such as "paywall.hard", "paywall.soft", "paywall.geoblock", and so on. The basic tag could be "paywall", which could be used by default on all paywalled articles, but the more detailed tags would be available for people to apply optionally if they want to.
Alternatively, what about including the source in the tag? eg.
paywall.nytfor New York Times. Filtering via tags then allows opting into/out of specific sites that you've subscribed to.Potentially redundant with the url already being there, but this would work with existing systems.
edit: Improved clarity.
The source is already included in the domain. And Deimos has said "I do want to allow people to filter out topics from particular domains", so he's going to add a filtering ability for domains. I think it would be redundant to include this in the "paywall" tag.
And, if people want to filter out the New York Times in the short term, it's probably better to do that via a separate tag. I've noticed that some people are already adding tags to indicate domains/sources. If someone wants to filter out the New York Times, they can do so via those tags (if we all apply them consistently). We don't need to roll up "source" and "paywall status" into the same tag; there's plenty of scope to run these as two separate tags.
I don't know what this represents, sorry, so I don't understand your question.
I'm guessing indicating a source (New York Times in this example).
Ah. Now the rest of that comment makes sense. Thanks!
That's right. I've updated my comment to make that more clear.
If tildes hosted software that circumvented paywalls, and used this software to offer the content to its own users, I suspect tildes and/or its creators would be exposed to legal risk. I recommend against this approach. I am not a lawyer.
I'm amazed that https://outline.com/ continues to operate.
I'm sure it continues to operate through obscurity. Many sites continue to work in legal grey areas, until they hit a critical mass of popularity, then the lawyers come calling.
I'm a little disappointed that paying for the content isn't even listed as an option.
Given that we're on a website which aggregates content from scores of sources around the world, it's a bit impractical for any single Tilder to subscribe to all of them.
I subscribe to a local reputable news organisation here in Australia, but I'm not going to subscribe to all the sources that get posted to Tildes.
That would be a great idea! Unfortunately, we here on Tildes can't tell news sites how to charge for their content.
Then, honestly, you shouldn't be reading those sites. You shouldn't sneak into a movie theater because you can't afford to see the ticket. This is basically the same idea.
I can't subscribe to all the sites that people post here on Tildes. It's just not practical. I subscribe to a news site here in Australia, but I can't subscribe to all the news sites around the world.
this is a bad take. i get the desire for people to be paid for their work (as they should be), but people should also be able to read accurate, well sourced, detailed news without being prevented from accessing it just because they can't fork over 4 dollars a month to every major news outlet in america. whether you agree or not, demanding people pay up or go fuck themselves can and will only fuck over all but the biggest name news media in the long run if things continue as they are. it simply is not a sustainable model.
That's a fairly strong reading of the parent's comment.
Regarding sustainable models, it seems that the previous approach wasn't working either which is why news sites are now trying paywalls. It may or may not sustain, but they need to be trying something new.
I never said people should go fuck themselves if they can’t afford to pay for a site.
In a (different comment on this thread)[https://tildes.net/~tildes/b1e/whats_the_stance_on_paywalls_here#comment-2riw], I said this:
The goal should be that we use non-paywall sites that do their own reporting and don’t just copy and paste large chunks from paywall sites. Paywalled sites should be a last resort for a publicly shared site like this.
I'd prefer if people posted articles that weren't behind paywalls, but it skeeves me out to link to services which are just copying the content and reposting it. I work at a newspaper that charges for subscriptions. Those subscriptions, plus advertising, are how we afford to make the articles available. Don't do an end-run around it. Either pay for the subscription if you want to read the article, or don't read the article.
I agree that I'd prefer if people just posted links to non-paywalled sites and ones that did their own original reporting without a paywall. But sites like that are few and far between. And that number is shrinking every day. A large majority of articles (especially in the tech circle) are just reposts/rewrites of articles from other sites.
It's a company/news organizations prerogative to charge for content. You can't expect everyone to just make their content available for free and somehow make a sustainable profit off of it. And I hate the idea of using software that skirts around paywalls.
Maybe a good compromise would be to have sites that are known to have paywalls (like WSJ) flagged in some way?
Way off topic... let me know if you prefer a PM.
As someone who, for some reason, got a graduate degree in journalism but went into software engineering...how's it going? I'm a bit curious if the grass is greener.
I don't do anything related to journalism, I just work at the newspaper doing other non-journalistic stuff.
Oh ok cool.