I started to notice that more sites are turning into paywalls, and I don’t like that and would prefer ads over subscriptions.

I am curious, what does the general community think about that?

      • Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        30 days ago

        Yeah, “good journalism” is definitely what you’re paying for with ads or paywalls.

        To be clear, I support journalists - and they deserve to get paid for their efforts.

        But (a) OP didn’t specifically mention news sites, and (b) the revenue from websites via ads or paywalls is going directly into the coffers of the ultra-wealthy. Find me a news outlet that successfully implemented a paywall and then started paying their journalists and reporters vastly more money.

        You won’t, because they don’t.

      • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        30 days ago

        You realize that if newspapers offered a federated service (pay once, you get them all), they’d make money hand over fist?

        But noooo…each newspaper wants you to pay.

        I’d pay upwards of $20 a month if that guaranteed me access to the major newspapers (NYT, WaPo, LA Times, etc.) and my local one with one subscription.

        • Prison Mike@links.hackliberty.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          29 days ago

          I do this with Apple News. Not sure if anything like it exists, but what worries me is Apple cut their News development staff recently which makes me think people (at least Apple users) don’t value journalism enough to support it.

          • Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            29 days ago

            Apple is worth THREE AND A HALF TRILLION DOLLARS!!!

            Say that again. Three and a half trillion dollars.

            They have cash-on-hand reserves of in excess of $60bn. They could give every single employee $200,000 and still have half of it in the bank.

            Tim Cook is a relative pauper in the CEO game, with a net worth upwards of two billion. He could personally pay a team of a three thousand reporters with full benefits and remain a billionaire.

            It’s not people refusing to pay for journalism, it’s robber barons refusing to pay journalists.

  • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    26 days ago

    Obviously I don’t like either and I love both ad blockers and tools that bypass paywalls.

    But if forced to choose: I prefer ads. Here’s why - there’s no way I could reasonably afford to sign up for and pay for everything, if it was all behind a paywall. So I’d only have access to and be able to save a limited number of articles for myself.

    But if it’s just ad heavy, it’s more accessible and I can still save it. The range of what I’d be able to save and retain is much larger this way.

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    29 days ago

    Ads, because there are too many separate sites implementing paywalls, I don’t like any of them enough more than the others to subscribe.

    Reader supported without subscription model is my favorite though - I will and have thrown $5 to Wikipedia, the Guardian, etc. If there was some monthly umbrella one I might consider it, or a $0.25 pay per article but absolutely not $100 a year for one site absolutely no.

    Basically I think my overall budget for all sites would be sustainable at $10/month or so, sure. But not that much for ONE site, no.

  • airglow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    28 days ago

    Most types of ads can be blocked with uBlock Origin, while only some kinds of paywalls can be skipped with Bypass Paywalls Clean. Ads are the most privacy invasive monetization solution and with ad blocking becoming more common, I don’t think ads are a sustainable way to fund content in the future. Still, I would prefer to see voluntary subscription and donation options rather than hard paywalls.

  • Samuel Block@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    28 days ago

    Neither; use FOSS!

    But in all seriousness, ads. They may be filled with trackers from big tech to try to know my every waking thought and sell them, but I have handy dandy software to deal with that.

  • BitSound@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    30 days ago

    False dichotomy, I’d rather see other funding models like Patreon/Kickstarter. Paying gets you early access/bonus stuff/whatever, and you don’t need intrusive technologies like ads/paywalls.

  • Mio@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    30 days ago

    Paywalls for news. It makes it easy for me to know that this is not an important news article and can skip reading it. Time saving.

  • smackjack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    28 days ago

    I keep telling people but if they keep using ad blockers, then they can expect less content to be available for free. Yet they all want to act like they’re not responsible for this trend even though they are.

    • dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      28 days ago

      It’s not that simple, unfortunately. Even if you were concerned about the impact of using an adblocker, the ads are not like billboards, merely visual distractions, but rather ads now include invasive tracking and surveillance, and other malicious code that can freeze or make a website unusable. Ads often create an accessibility nightmare for some users. They also tend to use up data, making the internet less accessible to those in third world countries where internet access is slow and large data are a bigger problem.

      There have been some half-hearted attempts to create standards for advertisements, but the reality is that greed has always undermined attempts for the private sector to self-regulate on this issue, so short of some kind of legislative action to curb these problems, you are going to get people trying to protect themselves with adblockers.

    • spittingimage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      28 days ago

      they can expect less content to be available for free

      Less corporate content. But if big business wants to fuck right off the internet forever, it’s okay by me.

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      28 days ago

      I keep telling advertisers but if they continue using intrusive ads that send information to Facebook or appear after content has loaded forcing us to misclick, then they can expect more people to use ad blockers. Yet they all want to act like they’re not responsible for this trend even though they are.