Wouldn’t it be better to let these legacy news orgs (which aren’t really anything beyond advertising and data harvesting firms) block archive.org and thus no one will read their articles and they can go under? I’m struggling to think of a reason I need NY Times. I’ve never had a subscription and never seen writing that I thought benefited me as a citizen (they’re Very pro-war of any kind).

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> block archive.org and thus no one will read their articles and they can go under?

…why would they go under if the people who don’t pay for news stop reading them?

	▲	sublinear 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Media influence and authority has historically depended on getting cited by writing that is more directly relevant to the reader's concern (i.e. the topic of research). The paywalls were one thing, but disallowing archival is practically suicide.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

b00ty4breakfast 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

if people are reading the articles through wayback, then they aren't making any money because no data is harvested and no click-thrus or impressions or whatever the metric is are registered.