You get to read the title of the article, and if the information is that important to you, you can pay to subscribe. That’s actually how subscriptions work.
Google is an advertising company. They are likely being paid by the sources to drum up business.
Is that your habit in all human interactions? If someone can’t provide you free access to the full content of some communicative work–a film, a book, a painting, a sculpture, an article–you tell em to shut up about it?
Wrong. The OP in this thread links to a WaPo article; they prevent viewing in private browser mode, presumably since it’s doesn’t retain cookies & therefore easier for you to read over your allocation. It’s effort &/or beyond the technical abilities of some people to delete certain cookies from your browser.
My solution, if I really want to read something is that I have a couple of extra browsers (Tor & DuckDuckGo on mobile, SeaMonkey & PaleMoon on PC) that I only use for this type of thing. After I look at whatever I want to I delete all cookies/browsing history/passwords/etc. when I exit them. It’s easier to delete all than selective cookies & that way I don’t affect the cookies/signins on my primary browser (email, Dope, etc.)
Or you could pay for the services you are using. It’s $1 for the first month.
Yeah, sorry Guin: bad idea.
Some of the most reliable sources of original reporting are behind soft paywalls, and I don’t think we should stop citing the best newspapers in the country just because some people might need to take an extra two or three seconds to use a workaround and read the story.
There’s another issue, too. Some websites hide some, but not all, of their articles behind the paywall, and if you’re someone who has a subscription, it’s often impossible to tell which is which. For example, the New York Times’ recent 1619 Project is, I believe, available to everyone, whether or not you’re a subscriber.
I subscribe to the New York Times and the Washington Post, and if I need to cite one of them to support my argument, then that’s what I’m going to do. I understand that we can’t subscribe to everything. I wish I could justify the cost of a sub to the Los Angeles Times, but even a few bucks a week begins to add up if you have subscriptions all over the place.
I do think that people should be mindful of paywalls when posting links, and should, where possible, either summarize the key points of the article, or quote some relevant sentences or paragraphs. And if someone else wants to finds a free version of the same news story, then by all means go ahead and post it. But I’m not going to stop using paywalled sources; doing that would be an explicit caving in to the obsession with “free” news that has helped so much to reduce the amount of high-quality journalism.
There are good and reliable free sources of news. One is The Guardian. You’ll get a nag paragraph at the bottom asking you to donate in order to support their journalism (something I’ve done a couple of times), but they don’t paywall their articles. Public or quasi-public entities like the BBC (UK), CBC (Canada), ABC (Australia), and NPR also often do excellent journalism, and make it available for no cost. Some content on these sites, especially video, is sometimes geo-fenced, meaning you can’t watch it unless you’re in the home country, but the text stories are nearly always available worldwide. Al Jazeera is free.
Some effort? I’ll grant you that. But “beyond the technical abilities”? Give me fucking break!
I just cleared the LA Times cookies from my browser, without deleting any other cookies or browsing history. It took about half a dozen clicks, and all of 10 seconds or so. And doing that gives you four LA Times articles that you can read before you need to do it again. Other soft-paywall newspapers work in a similar way.
If you can’t go to that much effort, then you were probably never really very interested in the issue in the first place, and should probably just stay out of the thread.
I’m doing it right now. I get the paywall screen in a normal window (unless I hit the “reader view” button in Firefox really quick), but I’m reading things fine in a private window. The link in that thread works fine for me if I open it in a private window.
There’s a reason that consumer-based tech support starts with what should be quite obvious & stupid stuff first - is it plugged in?, is it turned on?, clear your cache., do you know how to clear your cache?, please reboot. for the Level 1 drones that answer your call/chat first. The masses are idiots & going 4 menus down (Firefox) is beyond the technical abilities of a significant portion of the populace unless they are being actively walked thru it by someone & even then some will still have a problem with it.
I can view the article in Chrome-incognito but not Firefox-incognito. Obviously there’s some difference between the the two browser’s incognito modes. Is there supposed to be a standard to incognito mode & if so, which one is doing it right?
Thanks to all who mentioned clearing cookies. Here is a link to how do it in Chrome.
As for YouTube clips, to get to the relevant part, here is a site for you to plug in the time where that part starts. Look closely at what this adds to the end of your clip and you can see how to do this without going to the site.
Actually, before the internet I usually went to the library where I could access a lot of newpapers/journals/magazines at no cost to myself for reference purposes. True, somewhat less convenient.
There are usually ways to get around paywalls for one-time access, alternate sources, etc. Using the sources mentioned is the OP is not the end of the world which is probably why the OP themself marked it as a mild pitting.
Really? Because I have an entirely electronic subscription to the New York Times, with nothing being dropped on my porch.
Can we also agree to only link to videos that don’t start with a ad?
I swear, I get ads on about 90% of videos I try to watch on the internet.
I subscribe to the Washington Post online because I fund that I read their articles more than other sites’, and they’re doing a lot of good reporting. I like to support that.
First, if someone actually WANTS to do it, and is willing to take half a minute to read the instructions, it’s really easy to go “4 menus down” and clear your cookies. As I said, if you’re not wiling to make that level of effort, you’re probably not interested enough to be in the conversation in the first place.
Second, in Firefox you don’t have to go “4 levels down.”
If you go to, say, the Washington Post, and it tells you that you’ve used up all your free articles for the month, all you need to do is click on the little “i” in a circle, at the left of the address bar. A drop-down menu will appear, and after about two seconds, at the bottom, you’ll see an option to “Clear Cookies and Site Data…” Click on that, and it will clear cookies for the current page without touching any other cookies or browser history. Then refresh the page and, voila, there’s your article.
That’s tough since if you have an adblocker you won’t know the ad is there.
I had no idea an adblocker could disable an embedded ad in a video. That might be what finally motivates me to install one.
It does on youtube. I know I still get ads on my phone, but not on my computers with adblockplus or uBlock installed.
Because the NYT LAT and WaPo are all unbiased and always print the truth.
The quality broadsheets certainly fuck up sometimes. No news organization is completely faultless or beyond reproach, and I’ve seen a number of problematic stories over the years in theNYT and the WaPo and the LAT.
The difference between them and the trash press like Breitbart is that the big newspapers have systems in place to prevent this from happening, and on the occasions when those systems fail, they are also much more willing to make corrections. When was the last time you say Breitbart of Fox News or the Moonie Times correct a lie or take back a trashy piece of sensationalist reporting?
Your own link shows that the Times corrected the story in question. Should the story have been reported accurately and fully the first time? Absolutely. But this qualifies as a bad and unusual stuff-up for the New York Times; for Fox News or Breitbart, it would be just another Tuesday morning.