I want to be clear that this is not a reaction to any specific post, just something that I’m thinking about as I’m browsing around.

What do people think about linking to paywalled content? I find it frustrating, personally–but only if I’m not currently paying for the material, because if I am then I’m logged in and likely won’t notice.

Maybe it would be nice to have a guideline, a suggestion, for people posting links to such content as top-level posts to provide a summary (like on this post) for those who don’t have access?

Also, I apologize if this is something that’s been discussed already and decided upon; I’m quite new to Beehaw / Lemmy, and this is on my mind so I figured I’d ask :)

  • Hexorg@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    On one hand I’m glad journalism is switching to paid website model, on the other hand - I just wish there was a better way of sharing paywalled content. It’s extra frustrating when it’s an article I enjoy reading and they let me read the first two paragraphs without any warning that it’s paywalled and they throw in 5 pages-long ad in between then suddenly BAM paywall. I’d much rather just have a “pay to see this” banner first or something.

    I really like Ars Technica’s model(and that’s why I’m subscribed) where if you subscribe you get no ads and some benefits like RSS feed to full articles.

    This being said, I don’t think it’s your responsibility to warn us about paywalls.

    • luna@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This being said, I don’t think it’s your responsibility to warn us about paywalls.

      Why? I want to be notified if I won’t be able to engage with a post. The entire point of sharing things is to start a discussion, and if I can’t do that because something is paywalled, what’s the point?