Note that while I don’t recall if it’s spelled out in the rules, a mod once directly asked me not to post instructions on how to bypass paywalls. I’ll flag this as soon as I post it to see if a current mod wants to add a similar note.
If I’m actually using their site and reading a bunch of articles, then I won’t use any workarounds. But if someone links it and it’s important to read as part of a discussion, then I’ll go ahead and work around it.
Oddly, a Bible site I’ve occasionally use has started having a soft paywall, where I’d have to enable ads. I wrote a script to just redirect me to a different Bible website instead.
Note to everyone: You are free to participate in the poll and to state your opinions about paywalls and such, but let’s not have any “how to” information about how to bypass them.
I would have chosen a poll option not presented, on the order of:
I don’t bother with figuring ways to get around news site paywalls because 1) I generally can find info important to me on non-paywalled sites or ones I have paid subscriptions to, and 2) while paywalls are annoying, good journalism will eventually become a much scarcer commodity if enough people figure they’re entitled to it for free and think they’re being clever by defeating paywalls.
To answer my own OP, I have paid subscriptions to wapo, wsj, and nytimes, but rarely bother logging in except when I need to pause wapo print deliveries. Because that takes longer.
For any site I read often, I spring for a paid subscription, but for a one-off that won’t allow a single free read, if I can’t find another source (including library) I’ll use a workaround. Very, very rarely, like twice in the last year.
No, and I’m a little surprised by how often I see complaints. Not even here so much, but I’ll scroll through the replies to a reporter posting a link to a story on Twitter and there will be people huffing and puffing about how the newspaper is hurting!! democracy!!! by hiding the truth behind a paywall when misinformation is free. Like, first, get off of your high horse before you get altitude sickness, but second, you’re complaining about a speed bump, more or less.
I feel the same as I do about ad blockers. Both about the volume of the whining about ads that are essentially voluntary to look at, and about the moral arguments that stem from the discussion of alternatives. It’s entirely possible to have a site that generates revenue from ads or paywalls that aren’t voluntary (or are at least much less voluntary), and the fact that a particular online repository has chosen otherwise indicates that their business judgement is that the voluntary system is the least-worst way of doing it. And I don’t think the marginal strain on a web server from merely looking at a website obligates anyone to opt in to running a particular script in their web browser.
(Also, maybe they’ve gotten better, but as of a few years ago it was harder to cancel a newspaper account than it was to cancel cable service. Moral arguments in favor of paying are a lot less convincing when you treat your paying customers like shit.)
Seems to me a one-free-article policy is not unreasonable. Mere mortals can’t afford to subscribe to everything. Want me to turn my adblocker off? Sure, we can negotiate that. Want me to subscribe for just one article? Nope.
I thought the percent answering yes would be 5% or so. I’d initially considered an ATMB thread suggesting we cut down on thread clutter by banning posts about not being able to read articles that aren’t, by publisher’s choice, actually blocked.
They annoy me. Dopers will comment that a link may be paywalled but there’s no such notice in the junk news feed on my phone’s browser and I hate clicking and finding it’s paywalled even if I can easily access it through other means. It’s really just a push ad to get me to buy a subscription which I will never do once they annoy me like that.
Huh? I’m often not aware of what’s paywalled and what isn’t in the papers i subscribe to. And often, i think the source I’m linking is better than the similar AP article. I’m not going to punish good journalism that happens to be paywalled by avoiding linking to it.
I mean, i pay for those newspapers because i think they are good, after all.
If you don’t know, sure. But if it’s a local paper that you know is paywalled why would you link to it? It’s annoying for other posters, and you’re not rewarding the journalist because nobody is going to subscribe.
My local paper has some articles paywalled, and others not. It’s not as clean a division as “I subscribe to this site so everything is behind a paywall.”
If they don’t demarcate the links clearly on their own website, though, then that’s just as bad as not knowing whether a link from a search engine is just an ad in disguise or really does contain the information the link purports to contain. The only paper I signed up for the “free” version of is the New York Times, and at least half of their internal links go to an ad for the paid version, and there’s no way to know which is which, which is just a useless search engine with more steps. So I cancelled my account. (The only paper I’ve signed up for the “paid” version for is The Guardian, because they don’t force you to jump through hoops to read a link or have surprise ad links. I don’t give them as much money as a paid subscription to other sites, but I only read an article or so a month so I am not costing them much bandwidth.)
I pay for subscriptions for the NYT, The Atlantic, Le Courrier International, die Neue Zürcher Zeitung, das Handelsblatt and buy The Economist weekly (for some reason I still like the paper version better, though it is more expensive). I read many other free articles here and there, but do not bother when they are paywalled. I read too much news anyway, and much too much crap on top of that.