Quote:
Paywalls are justified, even though they are annoying. It costs money to produce good writing, to run a website, to license photographs. A lot of money, if you want quality. Asking people for a fee to access content is therefore very reasonable. You dont expect to get a print subscription to the newspaper gratis, why would a website be different? I try not to grumble about having to pay for online content, because I run a magazine and I know how difficult it is to pay writers what they deserve. But let us also notice something: the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Washington Post, the New Republic, New York, Harpers, the New York Review of Books, the Financial Times, and the London Times all have paywalls. Breitbart, Fox News, the Daily Wire, the Federalist, the Washington Examiner, InfoWars: free! You want Portland Protesters Burn Bibles, American Flags In The Streets, The Moral Case Against Mask Mandates And Other COVID Restrictions, or an article suggesting the National Institutes of Health has admitted 5G phones cause coronavirustheyre yours. You want the detailed Times reports on neo-Nazis infiltrating German institutions, the reasons contact tracing is failing in U.S. states, or the Trump administrations undercutting of the USPSs effectivenesswell, if youve clicked around the website a bit youll run straight into the paywall. This doesnt mean the paywall shouldnt be there. But it does mean that it costs time and money to access a lot of true and important information, while a lot of ******** is completely free. |
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2DdBNUs
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire