Counterpoint: paywalls are what allow actual journalists to be on the web. If you’re not paying them, you should ask yourself why they would spend time writing something for you to read.

▲

boxedemp 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

In the 90s I spent many hours on IRC and newsgroups reading all kinds of wonderful, and some not so wonderful things. I even had my own website, with photos, a web log, and a guest book! None of us were paid.

Sure, it wasn't as dressed up, but it was joyful and charming.

Not everything is about money, and not everything needs to be done for money. On the contrary; money seems to drain the charm and joy.

▲

janalsncm a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Not everything is about money, and not everything needs to be done for money. On the contrary; money seems to drain the charm and joy.

Perhaps some journalists have made the exact same argument to their landlords and at the grocery store. It probably didn’t go over very well.

	▲	sieabahlpark a day ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

jarjoura a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So, social media is your news source, same as it is today?

▲

esafak a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But you weren't a journalist trying to earn a living.

▲

nsonha a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't think "not everything is about money" is meant for taking freebies or employing people without paying.

Either pay or watch ads, which is it?

▲

jasomill a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Because somebody else is paying them? Public funding, indvidual donations, corporate and non-profit sponsorship all come immediately to mind.

Commercial journalism could also be funded with profits from other lines of business. While shareholders might revolt if Disney started streaming World News Tonight ad and subscription free, Michael Bloomberg could remove Bloomberg News paywalls with a phone call.