AskBeehaw

2033 readers

1 users here now

An open-ended community for asking and answering various questions! Permissive of asks, AMAs, and OOTLs (out-of-the-loop) alike.

In the absence of flairs, questions requesting more thought-out answers can be marked by putting [SERIOUS] in the title.

Subcommunity of Chat

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza

thrawn21

UngodlyAudrey

Why hard paywalls is not blocked on Lemmy? (ponder.cat)

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by Cat@ponder.cat to c/askbeehaw

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I started to notice some people posting NYT, Bloomberg or other websites with hard paywalls, that leads to people in the comments that are unable to read the article to discuess the headline without any analysis and some times spreading misinformation, which cannot be countered by the article, due to the paywall.

Which bring me to this: Why does no one thought about blocking hard paywalled articles for the sake of quality of discussion?

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Because it is the original data source which can be used to find non paywall archives using tools such as https://archive.ph/

I think it's always good practice to link the original source.

[–] Cat@ponder.cat 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Why not block both as orginal links?

No paywalls or Archive links.

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

If you block data sources because you fear misinformation, then you also can't discuss the misinformation/propaganda you disprove of. If you don't allow that information to be posted, it is still being read by many many people that now have less chances of being informed about it being misinformation.

I don't think limiting information is ever a good solution.

[–] Cat@ponder.cat 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You can post third party source that discuess the orginal article and that way you can gurantee accessibility and almost full info.

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 2 points 1 week ago

I agree that would be good

[–] millie 6 points 1 week ago

What's wrong with archive links?

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago

People generally just discuss the headline regardless lol, but you make an interesting point.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

Because these sites tend to be among the most credible for general news-info and many kind OPs provide gift links or archive bypasses. And it's just one more step for you to bypass the paywall yourself anyway.

If you banned those sites you would be limited to only a select few neutral sites, local channels ([tinytown]news.com etc.), heavily opinionated sites (I'm including sites I agree with and don't here), propaganda and misinfo (they would never paywall that because their purpose is to get people's eyeballs on it).

[–] jarfil 3 points 1 week ago

Those "hard paywalls" often go away with the right combination of browser, archive, and/or ad blocker.

If anything, I'd vote for archive links for everything, instead of an article that can be amended or removed at any time. If it's good for Wikipedia, it should be good for Lemmy.

[–] chloyster 1 points 1 week ago

Tbh everyone should just use bypass paywalls clean. It's a bit harder to find now that it's been taken down on most well known code repos, but it is still regularly updated and works extremely well. Here is a direct link to the latest .xpi file you can use in your browser: Bypass Paywalls Clean