If it's the source of the article, that's what should be posted. I can read New York Times articles, and so can many other people. If you're not able to, that's kind of your issue, not one that...
If it's the source of the article, that's what should be posted. I can read New York Times articles, and so can many other people. If you're not able to, that's kind of your issue, not one that everyone else needs to work around for you. We'd have to stop submitting from tons of different sites (many of which are common primary sources for stories) if the criteria was that everyone had to be able to access everything.
I'm hoping to have domain-filtering added fairly soon (it's another aspect of the major updates to subscribing/etc. that I've been talking about), so at that point you can just filter out all the nytimes.com topics if you don't want to figure out how to circumvent it.
It's your problem because it's you that's unable or unwilling to take the steps necessary to get access to the articles. Plenty of other people do have access, but you want to stop them all from...
It's your problem because it's you that's unable or unwilling to take the steps necessary to get access to the articles. Plenty of other people do have access, but you want to stop them all from being able to post and discuss that content because of your personal situation.
If someone starts a discussion about The Boys in ~tv, I don't make a post saying that we shouldn't be allowed to discuss anything about shows exclusive to Amazon Prime because I don't have Amazon Prime. If I want to participate in that discussion, I'll need to either subscribe to Amazon Prime, or find some other way to view the show.
It's exactly the same: if you want to participate in the discussions about New York Times articles, you'll need to either subscribe to the NYT, or find some other way to view the articles. I don't know what the pricing is in Australia, but in Canada I can get a year of NYT access for $4 CAD/month. If there's a similar deal for you and you find that there are a lot of NYT articles that you wish you could read, it seems like that's a pretty affordable price to pay to be able to.
As the guilty OP for the mentioned objectionable link, I'll submit that my inclination is to pay for content that I visit persistently, to the extent it's affordable. However, given the...
Exemplary
As the guilty OP for the mentioned objectionable link, I'll submit that my inclination is to pay for content that I visit persistently, to the extent it's affordable.
However, given the grotesquely invasive and insecure ad support models for "free" or paid content, it's a matter of routine for me to block scripts and clear cache/cookies. Doing so will get you access to the vast majority of paywalled articles, not to mention improving the security and performance of your browser.
I'll make a carefully considered post through outline.com for specific articles from Financial Times and other sources that appeal to narrow interests, at extravagant subscription prices.
In response to @Algernon_Asimov's secondary complaint about "local" content, The New York Times is a major U.S. news source of significant international import, as consequential and widely circulated as Germany's Bild or China's People's Daily. The posted article concerned a matter of some general interest to Tildes' science fiction readers, regardless of nationality. Though I could have dug further for another topic source, this particular article happened to be reasonably descriptive and first in my feeds. I did take some care in commenting with additional, freely available sources.
As others have commented at length, there are enough cultural obstacles to posting or commenting on Tildes. I think it's unnecessary to create additional restrictions on sourcing, other than suggesting good-faith efforts to enable access while supporting serious journalism and writing.
Oh, I wasn't claiming to have solved the wider issue; I just thought it was an interesting article and that you should get a chance to read it. The solution is probably just running a bot to give...
Oh, I wasn't claiming to have solved the wider issue; I just thought it was an interesting article and that you should get a chance to read it.
The solution is probably just running a bot to give archive.org archives & outline.com grabs.
I get a smattering of subscriptions through my local public library, and university alumni benefits. I may not be able to read all the paywalled articles, but I can read some. I don't follow these...
I get a smattering of subscriptions through my local public library, and university alumni benefits. I may not be able to read all the paywalled articles, but I can read some. I don't follow these publications through these services because there's no good way to make it convenient, so I end up finding a lot of articles I want to read on them through other methods, such as sites like this and services like Google Now. Even places like my work's IM channel for news.
There are so many good ones from them. All these paywalled publications know they're paying for good talent, and they're asking for what amounts to a nominal fee for a good amount of content. It's no different than many magazine subscriptions.
I don't see why these articles shouldn't be broadcasted widely, even if they're paywalled. At the very least, their existence should be spoken about. Not everyone may be able to read it, but everyone should be able to talk about it. Sure, there's much to be said for reading an article before commenting but that gets less important the more children deep a commend thread goes.
Then there are many people who post articles in their entirety in comments for everyone to read. It's definitely a grey area, but it happens often enough that it can't be ignored.
Morally speaking, if we aren't allowed, or supposed, to post them, then I feel like we're contributing to the death of journalism even more, kicking it while its down. Business has led journalism to this point, and now we're turning our backs on acknowledging their existence because they try to survive a new age of information. I can't get with that, it's weird.
100% this. If you're in a situation where free articles are no longer enough, you should consider paying a couple of bucks a month to cover the work that goes into it and the author's livelihood....
Morally speaking, if we aren't allowed, or supposed, to post them, then I feel like we're contributing to the death of journalism even more, kicking it while its down. Business has led journalism to this point, and now we're turning our backs on acknowledging their existence because they try to survive a new age of information. I can't get with that, it's weird.
100% this. If you're in a situation where free articles are no longer enough, you should consider paying a couple of bucks a month to cover the work that goes into it and the author's livelihood. As could be said with platforms for online forums and their developers ;)
Instead of stressing Tildes' duty in supporting a particular publishing model, I'd rather consider which models are better suitable to be published on Tildes.
Instead of stressing Tildes' duty in supporting a particular publishing model, I'd rather consider which models are better suitable to be published on Tildes.
Should we ban posts from ~tv that discuss shows on Netflix, because not everyone pays for a Netflix subscription? I do think paywalls pose an interesting problem, but the solutions you're...
I would suggest that we ban posts where the content is behind a hard paywall. There's no point to these posts, because almost nobody can read/view them, so we're not losing anything.
Or, at the very least, people should be required to provide an alternative source for the article.
Should we ban posts from ~tv that discuss shows on Netflix, because not everyone pays for a Netflix subscription?
I do think paywalls pose an interesting problem, but the solutions you're suggesting are way too heavy-handed and prescriptive.
Commenting "here's an alternate link for anyone else who can't read it due to the paywall" seems like it's always useful, either by the OP or by someone else.
There's been occasional comments requesting "I can't read it due to the paywall, can someone paste the article text into a comment?". Those have been removed or deleted in every case I've seen, and for good reason. That's a bad way to work around a paywall, since it puts Deimos on the hook for potentially dealing with a copyright infringement or DMCA claim.
There are quite a few subreddits I've seen where a link to a paywalled news site will have an Automoderator comment with "here's an archive.org link..." or similar.
Ultimately, what I'd like to see (perhaps only for some groups, for example ~news would use this but ~creative probably wouldn't) is some way of adding "alternate sources" to a topic (besides just a comment). That'd be useful for "man walks on moon" type news stories where it's difficult to pick a single canonical URL representing the topic, as well as "here's a news story about a scientific discovery, and here's a link to the paywalled scientific paper itself".
This is not the same thing. A paywalled article prevents the reader from accessing the content OP intended to share. A post or article about a Netflix show is its own content, it merely refers to...
Should we ban posts from ~tv that discuss shows on Netflix, because not everyone pays for a Netflix subscription?
This is not the same thing. A paywalled article prevents the reader from accessing the content OP intended to share. A post or article about a Netflix show is its own content, it merely refers to a Netflix show.
I think it's a good analogy, I like it. We'd never consider saying something like "don't submit any discussions asking for opinions on non-free video games, because not everyone will have been...
I think it's a good analogy, I like it.
We'd never consider saying something like "don't submit any discussions asking for opinions on non-free video games, because not everyone will have been able to play them", and tons of other subjects are similar too. There's a "paywall" on books, movies, TV shows, various hobbies, travel, and so many other things. We don't consider all of those topics taboo though, just because not everyone will have had access to the "source material". It's fine for all of those topics if they're not applicable to everyone, and articles can be that way too.
It is not common for people to link direct to an Amazon listing or Netflix show. Content about content is content in itself. I think the distinction is relevant.
It is not common for people to link direct to an Amazon listing or Netflix show. Content about content is content in itself. I think the distinction is relevant.
If you want less paywalled content, the solution isn't to ban or discourage paywalled content, it's to post more non-paywalled content. Here's some news sources that don't paywall (as far as I'm...
If you want less paywalled content, the solution isn't to ban or discourage paywalled content, it's to post more non-paywalled content.
Here's some news sources that don't paywall (as far as I'm aware) anything: The Guardian, NPR, BBC, Reuters.
If it's the source of the article, that's what should be posted. I can read New York Times articles, and so can many other people. If you're not able to, that's kind of your issue, not one that everyone else needs to work around for you. We'd have to stop submitting from tons of different sites (many of which are common primary sources for stories) if the criteria was that everyone had to be able to access everything.
I'm hoping to have domain-filtering added fairly soon (it's another aspect of the major updates to subscribing/etc. that I've been talking about), so at that point you can just filter out all the nytimes.com topics if you don't want to figure out how to circumvent it.
That would be wonderful.
It's your problem because it's you that's unable or unwilling to take the steps necessary to get access to the articles. Plenty of other people do have access, but you want to stop them all from being able to post and discuss that content because of your personal situation.
If someone starts a discussion about The Boys in ~tv, I don't make a post saying that we shouldn't be allowed to discuss anything about shows exclusive to Amazon Prime because I don't have Amazon Prime. If I want to participate in that discussion, I'll need to either subscribe to Amazon Prime, or find some other way to view the show.
It's exactly the same: if you want to participate in the discussions about New York Times articles, you'll need to either subscribe to the NYT, or find some other way to view the articles. I don't know what the pricing is in Australia, but in Canada I can get a year of NYT access for $4 CAD/month. If there's a similar deal for you and you find that there are a lot of NYT articles that you wish you could read, it seems like that's a pretty affordable price to pay to be able to.
Do you have cookie blocking or an always-private browser or something? I know there's been times where they block people in private mode.
As the guilty OP for the mentioned objectionable link, I'll submit that my inclination is to pay for content that I visit persistently, to the extent it's affordable.
However, given the grotesquely invasive and insecure ad support models for "free" or paid content, it's a matter of routine for me to block scripts and clear cache/cookies. Doing so will get you access to the vast majority of paywalled articles, not to mention improving the security and performance of your browser.
I'll make a carefully considered post through outline.com for specific articles from Financial Times and other sources that appeal to narrow interests, at extravagant subscription prices.
In response to @Algernon_Asimov's secondary complaint about "local" content, The New York Times is a major U.S. news source of significant international import, as consequential and widely circulated as Germany's Bild or China's People's Daily. The posted article concerned a matter of some general interest to Tildes' science fiction readers, regardless of nationality. Though I could have dug further for another topic source, this particular article happened to be reasonably descriptive and first in my feeds. I did take some care in commenting with additional, freely available sources.
As others have commented at length, there are enough cultural obstacles to posting or commenting on Tildes. I think it's unnecessary to create additional restrictions on sourcing, other than suggesting good-faith efforts to enable access while supporting serious journalism and writing.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190829030153/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/books/john-w-campbell-award-jeannette-ng.html
Here you are!
Oh, I wasn't claiming to have solved the wider issue; I just thought it was an interesting article and that you should get a chance to read it.
The solution is probably just running a bot to give archive.org archives & outline.com grabs.
I get a smattering of subscriptions through my local public library, and university alumni benefits. I may not be able to read all the paywalled articles, but I can read some. I don't follow these publications through these services because there's no good way to make it convenient, so I end up finding a lot of articles I want to read on them through other methods, such as sites like this and services like Google Now. Even places like my work's IM channel for news.
There are so many good ones from them. All these paywalled publications know they're paying for good talent, and they're asking for what amounts to a nominal fee for a good amount of content. It's no different than many magazine subscriptions.
I don't see why these articles shouldn't be broadcasted widely, even if they're paywalled. At the very least, their existence should be spoken about. Not everyone may be able to read it, but everyone should be able to talk about it. Sure, there's much to be said for reading an article before commenting but that gets less important the more children deep a commend thread goes.
Then there are many people who post articles in their entirety in comments for everyone to read. It's definitely a grey area, but it happens often enough that it can't be ignored.
Morally speaking, if we aren't allowed, or supposed, to post them, then I feel like we're contributing to the death of journalism even more, kicking it while its down. Business has led journalism to this point, and now we're turning our backs on acknowledging their existence because they try to survive a new age of information. I can't get with that, it's weird.
100% this. If you're in a situation where free articles are no longer enough, you should consider paying a couple of bucks a month to cover the work that goes into it and the author's livelihood. As could be said with platforms for online forums and their developers ;)
Instead of stressing Tildes' duty in supporting a particular publishing model, I'd rather consider which models are better suitable to be published on Tildes.
That's the whole point of being neutral - to not support any model in particular.
This isn't a publishing platform, this is a content sharing site.
Should we ban posts from ~tv that discuss shows on Netflix, because not everyone pays for a Netflix subscription?
I do think paywalls pose an interesting problem, but the solutions you're suggesting are way too heavy-handed and prescriptive.
Commenting "here's an alternate link for anyone else who can't read it due to the paywall" seems like it's always useful, either by the OP or by someone else.
There's been occasional comments requesting "I can't read it due to the paywall, can someone paste the article text into a comment?". Those have been removed or deleted in every case I've seen, and for good reason. That's a bad way to work around a paywall, since it puts Deimos on the hook for potentially dealing with a copyright infringement or DMCA claim.
There are quite a few subreddits I've seen where a link to a paywalled news site will have an Automoderator comment with "here's an archive.org link..." or similar.
Ultimately, what I'd like to see (perhaps only for some groups, for example ~news would use this but ~creative probably wouldn't) is some way of adding "alternate sources" to a topic (besides just a comment). That'd be useful for "man walks on moon" type news stories where it's difficult to pick a single canonical URL representing the topic, as well as "here's a news story about a scientific discovery, and here's a link to the paywalled scientific paper itself".
This is not the same thing. A paywalled article prevents the reader from accessing the content OP intended to share. A post or article about a Netflix show is its own content, it merely refers to a Netflix show.
I think it's a good analogy, I like it.
We'd never consider saying something like "don't submit any discussions asking for opinions on non-free video games, because not everyone will have been able to play them", and tons of other subjects are similar too. There's a "paywall" on books, movies, TV shows, various hobbies, travel, and so many other things. We don't consider all of those topics taboo though, just because not everyone will have had access to the "source material". It's fine for all of those topics if they're not applicable to everyone, and articles can be that way too.
It is not common for people to link direct to an Amazon listing or Netflix show. Content about content is content in itself. I think the distinction is relevant.
It would certainly please me if paywalled articles were banned, but as an alternative I suggest they be at least explicitly discouraged.
If you want less paywalled content, the solution isn't to ban or discourage paywalled content, it's to post more non-paywalled content.
Here's some news sources that don't paywall (as far as I'm aware) anything: The Guardian, NPR, BBC, Reuters.
I find that I'm annoyed for a few seconds, but it passes quickly when I remember that I'm probably reading too much news anyway.