The truth is paywalled but the lies are free

Wednesday at Stoke · Aug 5, 2020

I came across this article and felt it was worth sharing here as this is a vital yet under discussed aspect when we generally lament the spread of fake news and false information.

But let us also notice something: the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Washington Post, the New Republic, New York, Harper’s, the New York Review of Books, the Financial Times, and the London Times all have paywalls. Breitbart, Fox News, the Daily Wire, the Federalist, the Washington Examiner, InfoWars: free! You want “Portland Protesters Burn Bibles, American Flags In The Streets,” “The Moral Case Against Mask Mandates And Other COVID Restrictions,” or an article suggesting the National Institutes of Health has admitted 5G phones cause coronavirus—they’re yours. You want the detailed Times reports on neo-Nazis infiltrating German institutions, the reasons contact tracing is failing in U.S. states, or the Trump administration’s undercutting of the USPS’s effectiveness—well, if you’ve clicked around the website a bit you’ll run straight into the paywall. This doesn’t mean the paywall shouldn’t be there. But it does mean that it costs time and money to access a lot of true and important information, while a lot of bullshit is completely free.

He also goes in on the academic publishing industry keeping knowledge, generated by research funded by tax dollars behind closed doors.

Possibly even worse is the fact that so much academic writing is kept behind vastly more costly paywalls. A white supremacist on YouTube will tell you all about race and IQ but if you want to read a careful scholarly refutation, obtaining a legal PDF from the journal publisher would cost you $14.95, a price nobody in their right mind would pay for one article if they can’t get institutional access.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/08/the-truth-is-paywalled-but-the-lies-are-free/

He doesn't necessarily offer a solution as much as wistfully thinking about a utopia where knowledge is democratically distributed but it is indeed quite thought provoking.

Cait Sith · Aug 5, 2020

"Fake News" work because most people are neanderthals acting upon reverse psychology. Example? If the news cycle overwhelms you with "be careful about Covid", "wear masks", "travel restrictions", "shops closed", the neanderthals will doubt that just to be different than the majority and feel all clever about being in a minority of intelligent people.

Yet if the majority of the news cycle were to be: "It's not too bad", "don't worry", "you can all do what you want freely", "we got it all under control", the exact same people would be the ones who wouldn't leave the house without an Astronaut's full gear because there is a world wide conspiracy to kill people aka Chemtrail believers. The EXACT same people who are fighting against masks right now.

VorZakone · Aug 5, 2020

Isn't the WaPo owned by Bezos?

utdalltheway · Aug 5, 2020

Vidyoyo · Aug 5, 2020

Well yeah, the internet has sort of become like believing that guy shouting on the street that the apocalypse is coming.

Only because you can't see him, and don't judge him on his appearance, and because he has a fancy website, you think he's onto something.

Edgar Allan Pillow · Aug 5, 2020

Not just paywall, but the way Google results popup is even more strange. I used to get NY Post and WaPo on top of my search results all the time, so I decided to dig in and buy a subscription to both.

But after that I see they are no longer top of search results and have been replaced with USA Today, which is another paywall.

This is all so much of a scam.

Rado_N · Aug 5, 2020

Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Not just paywall, but the way Google results popup is even more strange. I used to get NY Post and WaPo on top of my search results all the time, so I decided to dig in and buy a subscription to both.

But after that I see they are no longer top of search results and have been replaced with USA Today, which is another paywall.

This is all so much of a scam.

Assume you mean NY Times rather than Post? Very different publications.

Edgar Allan Pillow · Aug 5, 2020

Rado_N said:
Assume you mean NY Times rather than Post? Very different publications.

Yeah. It's Times.

Just thinking Google filters once you sign up and moves priority down.

Rado_N · Aug 5, 2020

Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Yeah. It's Times.

Just thinking Google filters once you sign up and moves priority down.

I’d be surprised, Google results tend to favour sites you’ve visited frequently in my experience.

Edgar Allan Pillow · Aug 5, 2020

Rado_N said:
I’d be surprised, Google results tend to favour sites you’ve visited frequently in my experience.

That was my assumption too. But I practically was seeing NY Times and WaPo everytime I search to them dropping off completely. Only difference is my registering with them.

pierrethesnack · Aug 5, 2020

Cait Sith said:
"Fake News" work because most people are neanderthals acting upon reverse psychology. Example? If the news cycle overwhelms you with "be careful about Covid", "wear masks", "travel restrictions", "shops closed", the neanderthals will doubt that just to be different than the majority and feel all clever about being in a minority of intelligent people.

Yet if the majority of the news cycle were to be: "It's not too bad", "don't worry", "you can all do what you want freely", "we got it all under control", the exact same people would be the ones who wouldn't leave the house without an Astronaut's full gear because there is a world wide conspiracy to kill people aka Chemtrail believers. The EXACT same people who are fighting against masks right now.

Yes, what a wonderful world it would be if the masses would just succumb to docile collectivism.

oneniltothearsenal · Aug 5, 2020

Edgar Allan Pillow said:
That was my assumption too. But I practically was seeing NY Times and WaPo everytime I search to them dropping off completely. Only difference is my registering with them.

I do not have that experience at all and it's not how the Goole Algorithm works based on what SEOs know. Sounds like the type of baseless conspiracy theory you'd find on Reddit TBH
I subscribed to The Atlantic Monthly and LA Times and they still show up at the top of my results for instance

You should try a clean browser and then trying searching with " pws=0 " and see what you get

Edgar Allan Pillow · Aug 5, 2020

oneniltothearsenal said:
I do not have that experience at all and it's not how the Goole Algorithm works based on what SEOs know. Sounds like the type of baseless conspiracy theory you'd find on Reddit TBH
I subscribed to The Atlantic Monthly and LA Times and they still show up at the top of my results for instance

It was a personal experience, not any reddit opinion.

SirAF · Aug 5, 2020

It’s a good point, but quality journalism is always going to cost money. Publications like The Atlantic, NY Times and WaPo are definitely worth paying for if you can afford to.

Dr. Dwayne · Aug 5, 2020

SirAF said:
It’s a good point, but quality journalism is always going to cost money. Publications like The Atlantic, NY Times and WaPo are definitely worth paying for if you can afford to.

The OP is suggesting that doing so alienates readers who then turn to free outlets with different agendas (the lies). Surely the WaPo's owner, at least, can make it free to all.

SirAF · Aug 5, 2020

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
The OP is suggesting that doing so alienates readers who then turn to free outlets with different agendas (the lies). Surely the WaPo's owner, at least, can make it free to all.

Yeah, I got his point and in relation to Bezos you are spot on. However, most business people are not going to turn down a profit - altough that’s definitely the morally right thing to do (especially) here.

Those who are susceptible to far right «fake news» are often on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale so it‘s obviously not a good circle.

oneniltothearsenal · Aug 5, 2020

Edgar Allan Pillow said:
It was a personal experience, not any reddit opinion.

I'm saying your hypothesis "Just thinking Google filters once you sign up and moves priority down." is just not how it works at all.

What's really happening is:

1) Google has made some major algorithm tweaks over the last 4 months (and few years) that affect news sites. Here is just the info on the May update:

https://www.semrush.com/blog/google-may-2020-core-update/

2) Your own search patterns changed after subscribing (you started accessing the news sites directly or through email links, your search patterns simply changed naturally, etc)

3) some combination of 1 and 2

Your suggestion simply isn't how Google works. And it doesn't even make sense.

Green_Red · Aug 5, 2020

I don't understand the modern attitude that the internet means everything should be free.

Green_Red · Aug 5, 2020

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
The OP is suggesting that doing so alienates readers who then turn to free outlets with different agendas (the lies). Surely the WaPo's owner, at least, can make it free to all.

I dont know what you do for a living but any chance you could do it for free for all redcafe members?

Halftrack · Aug 5, 2020

All the actual fake news outlets have billionaires willing to pour money into them, because the kind of propaganda they spew is the kind that make billionaires richer. The truth doesn't, the truth tends to make them look bad.

Green_Red said:
I don't understand the modern attitude that the internet means everything should be free.

That's not what's being said here, though? It's pointing out a problem, but acknowledging that there's probably no simple solution to it.

Green_Red said:
I dont know what you do for a living but any chance you could do it for free for all redcafe members?

WaPo has a billionaire owner whose company treats its employees like shit, and yet you take his side. Curious.

golden_blunder · Aug 5, 2020

Green_Red said:
I don't understand the modern attitude that the internet means everything should be free.

And I don’t understand why people would pay subscriptions to news sites

Dr. Dwayne · Aug 5, 2020

Green_Red said:
I dont know what you do for a living but any chance you could do it for free for all redcafe members?

Media companies have other options to pay the bills beyond subscriptions but thanks for your effort. The specific reference to WaPo takes into account that their owner, Jeff Bezos, will be worth one trillion dollars soon.

Snow · Aug 5, 2020

Green_Red said:
I don't understand the modern attitude that the internet means everything should be free.

That was kind of the point of the internet. That reasearch would be accessible. Putting research papers behind a paywall is dumb.

0le · Aug 5, 2020

Interesting post.

I agree with the first quote.

Regarding the second quote, yes academic journal papers could all be free, but I do not think there is a real need for that either. Most people from the general public would not understand the papers they could read. This is not necessarily about intelligence but just experience. You need to have some level of experience of the subject matter before reading these papers and that experience can take months or even years to acquire. Alternatively you need to have someone that explains the parts you do not understand. Either way being free or not does not really change how people would use this information.

We should not ignore the influence of television and social media either. Both of these are free services as well and contribute positively or negatively to delivery of the news.

nickm · Aug 5, 2020

Halftrack said:
All the actual fake news outlets have billionaires willing to pour money into them, because the kind of propaganda they spew is the kind that make billionaires richer. The truth doesn't, the truth tends to make them look bad.

That's not what's being said here, though? It's pointing out a problem, but acknowledging that there's probably no simple solution to it.

WaPo has a billionaire owner whose company treats its employees like shit, and yet you take his side. Curious.

People get to be billionaires by... not giving things away completely for free. Its reasonable for WaPo to be run as a business (and it means it stays responsive to its customers/readers needs more than it's owner's). Bezos' wealth does however guarantee its safety and independence.

nickm · Aug 5, 2020

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
Media companies have other options to pay the bills beyond subscriptions

Don't know if you have been paying attention but the media is currently dying out precisely because it does not have many 'other options'. A few brands have the opportunity to charge their audiences directly but it's going to be a relatively small number overall, and only the best, or most focused will be able.

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
but thanks for your effort. The specific reference to WaPo takes into account that their owner, Jeff Bezos, will be worth one trillion dollars soon.

He's still some way off that...

But even if he wasnt, I'm not sure major brands reliant on the goodwill / pockets of rich owners is a good place for them to be. When the owner gets tired, then what? Better to have a brand that is self sufficient but has an owner - individual or corporation - who can provide cover and backing if it's ever needed.

Green_Red · Aug 5, 2020

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
Media companies have other options to pay the bills beyond subscriptions but thanks for your effort. The specific reference to WaPo takes into account that their owner, Jeff Bezos, will be worth one trillion dollars soon.

Who cares what he is worth, what has that got to do with anything? Do you think that because someone is rich that they owe you something?

Green_Red · Aug 5, 2020

Snow said:
That was kind of the point of the internet. That reasearch would be accessible. Putting research papers behind a paywall is dumb.

The point of the internet was to share proprietary information inside an organisation. If you weren't part of the organisation you didn't get the information. Do you expect to walk into a book store and take books off the shelf for free then just because someone has done the research?

F-Red · Aug 5, 2020

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
Media companies have other options to pay the bills beyond subscriptions but thanks for your effort.

Such as?

Green_Red · Aug 5, 2020

golden_blunder said:
And I don’t understand why people would pay subscriptions to news sites

So they don't have to read tripe. I understand that what I do professionally is chargeable, why should the work of a journalist be relegated to non pay worthy? I bet you feel the same about music and movies don't you? They should be free too?

George Owen · Aug 5, 2020

At least porn is free.

Wednesday at Stoke · Aug 5, 2020

Green_Red said:
So they don't have to read tripe. I understand that what I do professionally is chargeable, why should the work of a journalist be relegated to non pay worthy? I bet you feel the same about music and movies don't you? They should be free too?

Well, that's part of the argument the article is trying to make. It takes effort and talent to cultivate connections plus upfront costs for a journalist to travel and report facts from a place. Whereas it costs absolutely nothing to spout lies as you and I can do it from the comfort of our living room. Its part of why the likes of Infowars can afford to be free because what they are selling is lies, which are naturally abundant.

Green_Red · Aug 5, 2020

Wednesday at Stoke said:
Well, that's part of the argument the article is trying to make. It takes effort and talent to cultivate connections plus upfront costs for a journalist to travel and report facts from a place. Whereas it costs absolutely nothing to spout lies as you and I can do it from the comfort of our living room. Its part of why the likes of Infowars can afford to be free because what they are selling is lies, which are naturally abundant.

Yea thats what I got from reading it too. My comment was more directed at the modern attitude of "how dare they charge, it should be free, because its the internet!". I don't think it should be free when its proper journalism, and not just journalism, any profession that uses digital mediums. The lies I can understand being free because they need an audience to exist.

oneniltothearsenal · Aug 5, 2020

Green_Red said:
Who cares what he is worth, what has that got to do with anything? Do you think that because someone is rich that they owe you something?

In Bezos case its much less about "owing you something" and more about how to leverage the most from his own resources. He doesn't have to provide everything for free, but allowing certain political articles for free without the paywall would benefit his own interests.

oneniltothearsenal · Aug 5, 2020

F-Red said:
Such as?

Advertising. They could easily just have you sit through a 30-second ad to access the "free" content. Problem solved. No paywall.

F-Red · Aug 5, 2020

oneniltothearsenal said:
Advertising. They could easily just have you sit through a 30-second ad to access the "free" content. Problem solved. No paywall.

Ahh the magic 'advertising' pot. Print medium had a little more weight with it, now the internet returns very little for 'advertising'. You could argue that with the medium change and some relying on internet advertising as its sole income resort to publishing lies to get the clicks. A slippery slope.

Wednesday at Stoke · Aug 5, 2020

F-Red said:
Ahh the magic 'advertising' pot. Print medium had a little more weight with it, now the internet returns very little for 'advertising'. You could argue that with the medium change and some relying on internet advertising as its sole income resort to publishing lies to get the clicks. A slippery slope.

That isn't true though. Back in the days of print media, people had limited space on a page to sell ads and they had to advertise the same thing to everyone.

Digital media has the advantage of not being limited by space, they can even buffer video ads and use all the data that collect with cookies to tailor ads to the reader.

All that data collection that they further sell to third parties is once again a source of revenue.

F-Red · Aug 5, 2020

Wednesday at Stoke said:
That isn't true though. Back in the days of print media, people had limited space on a page to sell ads and they had to advertise the same thing to everyone.

Digital media has the advantage of not being limited by space, they can even buffer video ads and use all the data that collect with cookies to tailor ads to the reader.

All that data collection that they further sell to third parties is once again a source of revenue.

Limited space, but bigger investments. Even today print medium vs digital medium still has a bigger skew in terms of investment (talking from what we spend in our specific sector). Digital media doesn't have the limitations, but is driven by sessions. To keep driving bigger sessions, certainly in the newspaper field, does tend to drive more click bait articles. Daily Mail is an awful rag, but a good example where their online space has transformed them into some celebrity gossip platform as the sessions grew and the advertising goes with it.

Data collection is limited these days, certainly with GDPR.

Penna · Aug 5, 2020

I think it’s well-worth paying a few quid to get a different perspective - I subscribe to the NY Times and one or two other online newspapers.

I can understand why they charge you to view the whole thing. Print sales have presumably been dwindling away for years.

The days of when you were pleased to find that someone had left that day’s paper behind on the train are long gone.

VeevaVee · Aug 5, 2020

Cait Sith said:
"Fake News" work because most people are neanderthals acting upon reverse psychology. Example? If the news cycle overwhelms you with "be careful about Covid", "wear masks", "travel restrictions", "shops closed", the neanderthals will doubt that just to be different than the majority and feel all clever about being in a minority of intelligent people.

Yet if the majority of the news cycle were to be: "It's not too bad", "don't worry", "you can all do what you want freely", "we got it all under control", the exact same people would be the ones who wouldn't leave the house without an Astronaut's full gear because there is a world wide conspiracy to kill people aka Chemtrail believers. The EXACT same people who are fighting against masks right now.

This couldn't be more true

The truth is paywalled but the lies are free

Full Member

Full Member

What would Kenny G do?

Sexy Beast

The bad "V"

Ero-Sennin

Yaaas Broncos!

Ero-Sennin

Yaaas Broncos!

Ero-Sennin

Tasty

Caf's Milton Friedman and Arse Aficionado

Ero-Sennin

Ageist

Self proclaimed tagline king.

Ageist

Caf's Milton Friedman and Arse Aficionado

New Member

New Member

Full Member

Site admin. Manchester United fan

Self proclaimed tagline king.

Somewhere down the lane, a licky boom boom down

Full Member

Full Member

Full Member

New Member

New Member

Full Member

New Member

LEAVE THE SFW THREAD ALONE!!1!

Full Member

New Member

Caf's Milton Friedman and Arse Aficionado

Caf's Milton Friedman and Arse Aficionado

Full Member

Full Member

Full Member

Kind Moderator (with a bit of a mean streak)

The worst "V"