this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
98 points (92.2% liked)
politics
19148 readers
2065 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS.
It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments.
Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Register To Vote
• Citizenship Resource Center
• Congressional Awards Program
• Federal Government Agencies
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• The White House
• U.S. House of Representatives
• U.S. Senate
Partnered Communities:
• News
• World News
• Business News
• Political Discussion
• Ask Politics
• Military News
• Global Politics
• Moderate Politics
• Progressive Politics
• UK Politics
• Canadian Politics
• Australian Politics
• New Zealand Politics
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
People usually link to sites like MSN and Yahoo because the content is no longer locked behind a paywall. 🤷♂️
Many of the articles I’ve seen are not in fact behind a paywall but obviously YMMV
What seems reasonable to me is, if someone is willing to make the optional effort to do so, to link the original paywalled source as the primary link, but then either add the paywall-free MSN/Yahoo/AMP link at the bottom of the description or in a comment. It looks like this would still be in line with the updated rules, but would prevent duplicate posts (one posts only the paywall free version and one posts only with a paywall link).
There’s much better ways to do archive links that deal with paywalls, e.g. archive.is and others. News aggregators should not be relied on for archival links, as a link that works today may not work a year from now, as corporate agreements/ownership change
Ah, that's a good point that I hadn't considered. You're right.
Of course there might be that rare exception - where the archivers can't get past the paywall on the original site, but it's available from MSN or something.
Even so, it seems like as a general rule, prefer to use an archiver, and fall back to a news aggregator only as a last resort, and then archive the news aggregator's page so it's retained even if the aggregator drops the article later on. Am I on the right track here?
(Current example, https://archive.ph/nugTi did not succeed in getting https://theintercept.com/2024/10/09/white-house-oct-7-israel-war-gaza/ - in the past I've seen this overcome by archiving from the Google Cache'd version or from a version archived in the Wayback machine, but Google Cache was killed by Google and archive.org is currently down still over this holiday weekend.)
BTW, for that site and others with more of a nagwall rather than a paywall, viewing it in reader view takes care of the popup (and many Lemmy clients can be set to default to reader view for links)
Thanks, the tip about the reader view solves the original issue (on reading nagwalled articles). I run my own pyfedi/piefed instance so I'd be surprised if I could use a lemmy client, but I'll keep it in mind.
If only there was a way I could feed my reader view into archive.is (which would solve the other issue, that of preserving the article in case the original ever goes down).
Yep, that was a big reason. I subscribe to a few sites, but I realize not everyone does. And MSN links came up on my newsreader, but I have no problem just posting from direct sites. I do expect people will complain about the paywall though, but oh well.