this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
133 points (99.3% liked)

Asklemmy

43963 readers
1135 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I've been donating to the news site Vox for a while now, and all their content has so far been free. I felt kinda bad about blocking the ads on their site and fast-forwarding through all the ad breaks in their podcasts. So in the spirit of actually supporting something I like, I started chipping in a few bucks a month.

But recently, they've started putting some of their articles behind a paywall. Since I was already donating, I automatically have access. But for some reason, I feel like I don't wanna pay anymore. It's not like it costs me more, but there's just something about dontating to a free site vs paying for exclusive content that doesn't feel the same. Maybe cuz I'm not a fan of paywalls in general, so I don't want to support companies that implement them.

Does that make sense? What would you do? And if you're not a fan of Vox, maybe think of some other free service/content, like videos from a streamer or a software project or something.

all 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 59 points 1 month ago

Yes. By replacing your voluntary charity with a payment scheme, they’ve deprived you of the value of giving.

They changed the deal. It’s perfectly rational to want to stop consuming their content.

Whether you do is up to you, but you’re not crazy or anything for feeling deprived.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 month ago

Journalism isn't free. For a different type of service, I would reconsider if I wanted to continue supporting them. But good journalism is disappearing, so I think if you're in a position to help keep it going, you should.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The industries supporting journalism have basically collapsed over the past few decades. If you have the means to support decent research and writing, please do so.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

Agreed. 404media is one I pay and support.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago (2 children)

But recently, they’ve started putting some of their articles behind a paywall. Since I was already donating, I automatically have access.

In that case I don't see a problem. In a lot of ways your donation became a subscription, but then again, news cost money to make. This was true during the print days, and is no less true during the digital age.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Justifying prices is an oxymoron.

Either there’s a case for giving them money, or the basis of payment is the value being obtained in the article. Arguing for a price based on the costs behind it mixes the two frames and creates confusion.

It’s a law of demeter violation.

Once the paywall goes up, OP’s healthiest decision-making frame is “is consuming this content worth $X to me or not?”. If they wanted OP to worry about how much it costs to make news, they should have left it voluntary.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I see OPs point. I donate to Wikipedia, because I love what they do and want to support them. If they decided to put up pay walls, my personal feelings on their model would alter. Even if I got access as a doner.

I would no longer be inclined to donate, because I would no longer believe in what they do.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's like how the panhandlers started blocking my way and requiring a toll payment to get to the subway.

Just like that.

It's like my donation became a subscription.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

No but you bring up a good example: You don't get your sub for donating money to Subway. You have to pay them to get it. But in return, it provides a - questionable, some would say - service to you by providing you with food.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Subway never gave subs for free. This is a bad faith argument.

In order for it to work Sunday would have had to offer subs to anyone for free. You donate, because you like what they are doing. They become a paid service, your donation no longer supports the ability for people to eat for free.

This is an entirely different scenario and is not a good rebuttal

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago

I do not think I blame any services or sites for paywalls especially if its part of their financial model to continue operations and providing services.

There are many free services I have the privilege of being able to pay for to support: Proton, StoryGraph, Wikipedia. I used to donate to Pocket but no longer. I want these services to continue and am privileged enough to be able to donate

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago

I would only consider donating in the first place if it were not only free to access, but also licensed under a free license. I have donated to freely licensed projects before, but not to merely freely accessible websites.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Vox half-assed their paywall - the full articles are still in the free RSS feed

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Doesn't address OP's question - still the most important comment.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I would stop. At that point it's not really a donation, but a payment. I don't know how much of that donation to consider a "payment".

Similarly I didn't get the Tor Project stickers. I don't know how much the stickers, envelope and postage cost them, thus I couldn't determine the amount that is "donation". As such, I opted not to take them. Just the same with Fediverse Canvas 2024 stickers. Some amount of that has went for Canvas development, but how much I don't know. Once again I opted for donation only.
I'd like them in both cases. Perhaps $3 (excl. shipping) per sticker is still OK to consider a purchase, but $25 for a few stickers, meh.

Anyway, my point is, if for the donation I am provided exclusive products or services and I either don't know their cost (to subtract from donation amount) or don't have the choice to opt out from being provided the services/products, I won't donate at all.

But even outside of that, it wouldn't pass. For me, one requirement for donating is that whatever group I am donating to provides everyone the same service no matter if you pay them or not. Otherwise I can't really consider it a donation, and I don't have the money to pay.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

I feel the same way you do and I think you articulated this difficult concept pretty well.

How would you feel about a third, hybrid category called something like an “inflated price” or whatever, that’s understood to be a price above market value?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago

I’m annoyed by paywalls but I understand and accept them. I never view my payment as a donation, it’s just a way to get access to content. What troubles me is when important information is hidden to the public that might guide you in your understanding of the world and therefore (political) decision making.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I have mixed feelings. “ Back in my day,”…. Before the internet (cough cough) the only free news was the TV. We paid a quarter each day for the newspaper, or $3-4 for a magazine. I’m sure spent $50 a month across a variety of sources. And that was in the 90’s. I feel guilty pasting link after link into archive myself because of the paywalls.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Free online with library card and Libby!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I grew up on an internet that was made by and for people who wanted you to visit their site.

If you offer something for free, become popular, then turn it into a paid service, I will no longer use it.

If i had enough money that i didn't notice everything that is behind a pay wall would care a lot less. But I've never been in that position from the day i was born and it looks like ill die without ever knowing what that is like so I'm certainly biased.

That being said i think paywalls can be redone so that everyone wins.

If you have a paywall that only blocks new content until x minutes/hours/days etc have elapsed then I think that's a good way to monetize something when costs endanger the existence of the thing

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

Ask yourself why you're donating in the first place. Is it so that good journalism can continue to exist regardless of who gets to see it? Is it to give everyone access to good journalism regardless of their ability to pay? Is it so that the journalists can continue producing content for you to consume yourself? Maybe it's something else?

If the company is no longer providing what you expect from them, then that's a good reason to stop donating.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

If they're charging for access, they're now a business. I'd consider if I want to be a customer and if not, no further donations.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think the details matter a lot. If I'm an active contributor to a site and I get a bait and switch, then I'm probably going to leave the site permanently. I try to keep track of what's happening to make that less likely.

If you're setting up a service and you realize it doesn't scale up well, I think you should try to state your roadmap on your site somewhere, so the users can expect changes that might happen. If people go in expecting that you might need to monetize in certain ways, they won't be disappointed when you do. Or rather, they might be slightly disappointed but they'll understand.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I find it funny how the internet still rages sometimes.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

IMO, if you like a service/subscription and it's your choice to support them and thier content I wouldn't think twice.

My only paid subscription is MS office, because I've used Xcel almost my entire career (almost 30+ years use?) and have never paid for it until a couple years ago.

So I like the content, I use the service and pricer per annum is good for me (only a few more years and I'm done, so it still works out for me).

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Side note: do I have this right? You can actually picture a time in the foreseeable future where you never have to use Excel again?

If so, I am soooo deeply envious of you :P

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Well...we all die at some point... right?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

I love how the top 4 comments in this pretty active post represent a substantially different approaches to the question.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This seems backward to me.

Since your example is media. Them relying less on ads means they would cater and align more with their patron. In my anecdotal experience creators with sustainable patron also tend to produce higher quality products.

As an aside I also follow Vox, or at least a few of their talent pool juggernauts like Johnny Harris, Phil Edwards, How Town (Adam Cole & Joss Fong), and Cleo Abram. Most also have Patreon I think.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

It depends. If Wikimedia does introduce a paywall they are SOL. I would absolutely fork them privately (I do copy the content for my language once in a while and the most important media)and never pay another penny.

If a news outlet changes, it's different,at least for me.