Pretentious news sites with pay walls.

Bretrick

Well-known Member
So many news sites restrict viewing with pay walls now. They allow viewing of X amount of articles then want you to subscribe. Also block viewing if one has an ad blocker working. I simply get rid of the page.
Even This Video has not been made available for viewing in your country for copyright purposes.
Makes no sense to me.
 

So many news sites restrict viewing with pay walls now. They allow viewing of X amount of articles then want you to subscribe. Also block viewing if one has an ad blocker working. I simply get rid of the page.
Even This Video has not been made available for viewing in your country for copyright purposes.
Makes no sense to me.
Nor me... I just move on to a free source.... ..However altho' it's irritating I do understand the NEWS site who wish you to pay... they have to get their revenue from somewhere otherwise they can't afford to make the content..
 
Last edited:
Oh, if I may, it makes perfect sense!

It costs money to generate news stories. Be it research, operating costs, or supporting platforms (web, print, etc.) We live in a world where someone - let's for the same of it use the New York Times as an example - spends money to generate content, and that content is cut and pasted to millions of Social Media accounts in an instant. Most of the people doing this paid nothing for the content.

Think of how many Youtubers are making money from quoting news stories researched and written by someone else. More often than not, there is no attribution, and no credit given. They're essentially living off the back of the news media. As a business, this is ultimately untenable.

So, they introduce paywalls. It exists because they somehow have to generate funds in order to keep going.

As for copyright issues, I believe that's a case where the law hasn't caught up with the modern day. Copyrights at a country or continental level made sense back in the day, but in the days of the internet which knows no boundaries, it doesn't really work. Or at least, it's an annoyance. At the same time, each of our countries has its own laws regarding what is acceptable and what isn't, but these are not always the same thing. Country A might censor more than Country B, and how is that accommodated in the world today?

You know, paywalls on news sites can best be described this way: Do you think it's reasonable to pay money for a newspaper, or do you think you ought to be able to take whatever paper you want for free? They tried the free thing, and they're going broke!
 

I totally agree with you, it's getting beyond a joke.
What Video?
I come across the sentence every now and them. Can not name a specific case but music videos are prominent. I even came across this sentence trying to view an Aussie band. Obviously an overseas company bought the rights and decided Australians will not see it.
 
Oh, if I may, it makes perfect sense!

It costs money to generate news stories. Be it research, operating costs, or supporting platforms (web, print, etc.) We live in a world where someone - let's for the same of it use the New York Times as an example - spends money to generate content, and that content is cut and pasted to millions of Social Media accounts in an instant. Most of the people doing this paid nothing for the content.

Think of how many Youtubers are making money from quoting news stories researched and written by someone else. More often than not, there is no attribution, and no credit given. They're essentially living off the back of the news media. As a business, this is ultimately untenable.

So, they introduce paywalls. It exists because they somehow have to generate funds in order to keep going.

As for copyright issues, I believe that's a case where the law hasn't caught up with the modern day. Copyrights at a country or continental level made sense back in the day, but in the days of the internet which knows no boundaries, it doesn't really work. Or at least, it's an annoyance. At the same time, each of our countries has its own laws regarding what is acceptable and what isn't, but these are not always the same thing. Country A might censor more than Country B, and how is that accommodated in the world today?

You know, paywalls on news sites can best be described this way: Do you think it's reasonable to pay money for a newspaper, or do you think you ought to be able to take whatever paper you want for free? They tried the free thing, and they're going broke!
Anyway, I click away and find the story free elsewhere.
 
Anyway, I click away and find the story free elsewhere.

Sure, I get it. The last time I bought an actual newspaper was when I was commuting. Of course, the age-old adage comes to mind - you get what you pay for. I guess we can't complain about the quality of the news we get if we're not willing to pay for it. But then, I don't have much use for the news these days.
 
The news media is a business. It produces a product we want. You don't walk into to a restaurant and expect to be fed for free. You either pay a news site with ads or cash. That said, I hate those close anti-ad app news sites. And I'm way too cheap to pay.
 
The news media is a business. It produces a product we want. You don't walk into to a restaurant and expect to be fed for free. You either pay a news site with ads or cash. That said, I hate those close anti-ad app news sites. And I'm way too cheap to pay.

Tis true - but here's a thing. I see a lot of people today attacking "mainstream media" and various channels. People are deluded in thinking "alternative media" is somehow different, when in fact it's exactly the same, the listeners/watchers just prefer their message. But the thing is, when it comes to mainstream media we get what we pay for. If we're not willing to pay for it, we're get lowest common denominator coverage. News for the masses.

I grew up at a time when news broadcasts on TV weren't for entertainment purposes - they were for the NEWS. News shows were things they scheduled in between the entertaining stuff. What strikes me about US news media is that it is, primarily, entertainment. So you end up with jokey co-hosts, preened to perfection, with appropriate demeaning based on the story (someone dies, sad face. Someone saved from a pot hole, happy face.) The news has taken a back seat to the pantomime. It's all about the advertisers. And guess what - alternative media is just the same. It's just that they feel less accountable, and the internet has allowed smaller percentages of people feel they represent the masses. It's all done for money, be it Youtube money, ads, merchandise etc.
 
I never pay for news! I get it for free from CBC or BBC. Pay for all that negative garbage, photos of Trump, sports celebrities, war in Ukraine and all the stories about the new movie, "Barbie". Your kidding me, right?
 
I never pay for news! I get it for free from CBC or BBC. Pay for all that negative garbage, photos of Trump, sports celebrities, war in Ukraine and all the stories about the new movie, "Barbie". Your kidding me, right?

I'm dying to see the Barbie movie. The trailer is hilarious.
 
I come across the sentence every now and them. Can not name a specific case but music videos are prominent. I even came across this sentence trying to view an Aussie band. Obviously an overseas company bought the rights and decided Australians will not see it.
Wow, it sure sounds like it.
 


Back
Top