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 :)
You can just feed any paywalled site through archive.is to remove it.
Morally that does feel a bit weird, because they need to get money from somewhere to do proper journalism
Another one I found recently is 12ft.io
Nice! I havent heard of this one. I’ll have to install this on my partner’s phone. They have an iPhone (I have android). I usually just use the webarchives addon for Firefox mobile to open links in archive.is
I’ve found 12ft.io to be largely useless in my experience, it doesn’t do a shit ton of major outlets because they complained to the website and so it doesn’t seem to work
Works only for soft paywalls, like these “read 15 articles for free” ones, if it’s a hard paywall like stuff behind a Patreon or something it doesn’t help
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.
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?
I think it’s good etiquette. I also think that as you said:
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.
I never share a paywalled article on purpose, but since I don’t notice if it’s paywalled for my premium subscriptions, I often get it wrong. I’d really rather see a Lemmy-side automated flag rather than users having to check themselves every time they share (and often failing, because they’re humans).
It would be nice to have an option to flag something as “paywall” or “limited paywall” in the UI when creating a post. But I also don’t want to clutter up the UI too much, and I don’t know if enough users would use the feature to justify adding it.
If it were possible to add flair to posts, that might be a good way of doing it, and meet other user requests related to flair. Not sure how easy it is to add that, but I would definitely use that feature if it were available.
