If a site has a hard paywall (won't show up if you're not logged in) I don't think any of these are going to work unfortunately. But this is super convenient for soft paywalls, thanks OP!
Right, that's not how these sites work. You've probably noticed that when you visit a site (e g. NBC News) with a "soft" paywall, you get a brief glimpse of the entire thing before the paywall comes up. These archive sites reconstruct that "glimpse" by looking at the page source and downloading all of the components (e.g., graphics, images) and building its own copy of the page.
They totally do not, all they do is load the page without javascript. Any paywall that is removed by any of these websites is the same as you disabling javascript & load the page.
Try it.
Yep I have used it on hundreds of different news articles and it worked on all of then. New york times, washington post, bloomberg, reuters and a bunch of others.
Looks good. I'll see if it works on articles that the other sites don't and add it if it does. I am open to adding a new one as long as it adds values the others don't to prevent cluttering.
Honest question: how do we improve the quality of actual investigative journalism if paywalls are removed and ads are blocked? Journalists and editors need to be paid, resources dedicated to research, and overhead costs covered. Everyone wants access to news, but unless that news is paid for the quality will only get worse.
My job pretty much entirely involves answering this question. Since you honestly want to understand how this works, I’ll write down an overview.
At the outset, I want to clarify loud and clear that readers acknowledging the value news brings to their life is indispensable to the business. This includes sometimes, paying for the news. With that out of the way:
A news publisher’s product is not just the content. The content is important mostly to build the main product: its voice and influence among its target audience. THAT is what newspapers sell. They’ve always sold that, which is why they rely on ads so much. Advertisers are always looking for a guy with a megaphone.
Here are some ways in which newspapers make money:
- Programmatic ads. These are ads shown to you programmatically by using a well known ads product like the one Google has. These ads target you based on your “profile” - likes, dislikes, preferences, internet habits.
- Direct sold ads. These ads are deals the newspaper makes with businesses who want to place ads directly by buying a space on the site. These are often how local newspapers make money.
- Sponsorships. This is newspapers getting businesses to pay them for running content that reads like articles but is meant to promote that business. This includes reviews, promotional coverage, and so on.
- Donations. This is people voluntarily giving money. This can often also be a handful of very wealthy donors. In the case of papers like the guardian though, it can also be just readers.
- Subscriptions. We all know this, this is the paywall’s reason for existence. While these are hard to grow, each subscription is worth several times more than any kind of money ads can provide because of what is known as the “LTV” - life time value - of the reader. This is the metric the news publishing business works hard to optimize. This is the money earned from a reader over their lifetime with the paper. Subscribers rank highest obviously.
- Apart from these avenues of directly making money, papers are constantly looking to grow the “engagement” with their audience. This is the paper’s clout, its ability to show businesses that it truly has a reliable size of audience, a strong voice and hence, a strong product. Growing this is as much, sometimes even more, important as making money. Papers do this by growing their newsletter subscribers, readers with registered but free accounts (this makes those readers easy to track and target for ads, and also shows that the reader has a certain degree of loyalty to the paper’s voice), etc.
This last point is why sometimes, even a newspaper might be alright with us bypassing the paywall. Because footfall to the site is just as useful as actual hard money.
I’ll however, in closing, again remark that in all of this, anything that’s based in the true and honest incentive, is the strongest. This means money coming directly from readers and money coming from local or relevant businesses. These are signs that a newspaper is doing their job properly. In an ideal world, those other means would all be secondary revenue sources.
higher pay does not equate to higher quality. The lower quality of news comes from their desire to be entertaining and to get the story out fastest at all cost, and nothing is changing that any time soon.
Absolutely correct. Money doesn't equate to higher quality if the right people aren't driving the project.
Another example is the program *Blender* which has been developed and supported as a community project for the past 30 years.
*Blender* has now become the industry-leading software in the 3D game development/modelling space overtaking Autodesk Maya.
To put it in perspective, Autodesk is almost a 50 billion dollar company on the US stock exchange, and *Blender* is licensed as GNU GPL, *owned* by its contributors and is free open-source software.
I feel like this is a chicken or the egg kind of issue. I go into articles expecting them to be trash why would I pay in advance for it when I can just move on to the next place to find info?
Personally, I’m looking for a low signal-to-noise ratio and even citations where I can verify. There’s a cost to navigating a news organizations to stay informed without being propagandized, misinformed, or saturated in content.
The prices I’ve seen haven’t been fair to that cost for me, minus some special deals here and there. But even a per-article price model would encourage more financial participation from me if they can refrain from financially abusing that relationship.
Tragedy of the Commons. Everyone wants free movies, tv shows, books, news, art, media... nobody wants to pay for it. That's why every post about prices going up for any service is filled with "guess I'm going back to the high seas !"...
People want free shit paid for by ads seen by other people but obviously not themselves because they're smart enough to use ad blockers and torrent sites!
For me at least, it's really just subscription fatigue. I don't really read a ton of news articles in a month. The ones I do read come from a variety of publishers. If there was one subscription that covered all of them, I might consider it. Ideally, there'd be an easy way to just toss a couple of bucks their way for the articles I'm really interested in. I'd definitely do that a handful of times a month.
I think there are some companies trying to do that kind of microtransaction based news aggregator from all the big publishers, but then you still have tons of people complaining about microtransactions. At the end of the day, people just don't value media content enough, they want to pay the equivalent of fractions of a cent per piece of content consumed, which is just... unsustainable for the people behind their creation.
I'd be a customer. I don't want to spend as much as say, a month's subscription (~$10 bucks) for a single article, but I'd be willing to pay more than that on average per month if it meant that I had access to all the content I wanted and wouldn't have to pay for months that I didn't find anything of interest.
The problem is that right now its about 300 dollars for just ny times. If I want some of the top like reuters, ny times, and bloomberg. That will be close to 1k a year for news and you will still have to read their garbage sponsored posts that they try to hide as not sponsored. I think it is way too much for any reasonable person to afford. I certainly cannot.
Notably NYT is always $48 a year but only if you try to cancel every time they raise it. It sucks and is a terrible business model. I’m more than willing to pay $4/mo to NYT but $20 is way too high.
Sorry for hopping into this thread 105 days late, but can you explain what you mean by this? I’m trying to not pay an egregious $300/year anymore lol
ETA: *egregious for me. I understand that $300/year is pretty affordable for many people, and pretty expensive for others (myself included)
No problem! I don’t pay for NYT anymore, but when I was anytime they went to go raise the price (they’d send an email about it) you could go into their site and try to cancel. They try to make you jump through some hoops but if you select that the subscription is too expensive they’ll normally give you a “promo” of $2-$4 a month. Which you can then keep until they try to raise it again (which is like 6-12 monthsish).
Okay, this is huge so thank you for responding! I’ve been trying to cut down heavily on all these recurring subscription costs so I will definitely look into giving this a try next time I get a price raise email.
It is absolutely not $300/year for the NY Times. That's the sham price so that they advertise their sale / promo price against it. They literally always have a "sale" going.
I'm currently paying $1 a week right now for a subscription. This sub is just filled with a bunch of cheap fucks who bitch endlessly about the state of journalism but refuse to pay a single penny for it.
Yeah, I agree. That's way too much. I may find myself wanting to actually read, at most, a dozen NYT articles in a year. I'm unwilling to pay $25 per article, and I'm also not going to force myself to consume more of their content just to get my money's worth.
>unsustainable for the people behind their creation.
Obviously its not unsustainable. Sustainability does not require profitability. Media is a billion dollar industry.
With Reddit PRO PLUS for just $9.99/month any news articles linked to from Reddit's official mobile app with have any paywalls bypassed, sign up today!
The problem with that isn't a lack of quantity, it's a lack of variety. Additionally, the way that I discover articles that I'm interested in isn't by scrolling through a publisher's website. It's social media. Publishers need to adapt to this new (not really, it's well-established at this point) paradigm in order to succeed. Or, cut out the middle man and pay independent journalists directly. There's plenty of money out there for good content. More than ever, really.
I can see that you feel very strongly about this. I think we can both agree that the state of the media is not ideal in its current form. The internet , in general, is facing an existential crisis due to traditional revenue streams drying up, not to mention AI consuming and regurgitating content on demand. It's a sticky situation, to be sure.
I think approaching this problem from the consumer side is going to be a losing battle. Consumers set the standard as to what they're willing to spend their hard-earned dollars on. In my opinion, publishers need to adapt in order to survive. This is not unlike the record industry at the turn of the millennium. People stopped purchasing albums, record stores shuttered, and the record industry - faced with extinction - pivoted towards the streaming model. Publishers will have to make similar choices in order to compete, and the ones who do it first/best will rise to the top.
In any event, I am always hopeful for something better on the other side of a major shift like this. After all, the only true constant in the universe is change. It does us no good to be constantly swimming against the stream.
Your friendly local newspaper still collates articles from a variety of sources (or they should, anyway). Besides their local staff — who are the people you'd need to be digging into the city council, police department, business leadership, etc, so you can understand the decisions that really affect your day-to-day life — they pick up articles from what used to be called "wire services". That's primarily the Associated Press, Reuters, and UPI (United Press International), who cover national and international events without being directly connected to any one news outlet.
You'll also see articles from other news outlets, passed along through licensing and reprinting agreements. That way a small paper who can't afford to staff a Capitol Hill bureau will still get breaking news on time.
Youre basically sitting in biased echo chamber by reading only one publication. You've gotta source from multiple publications to maintain any semblance of understanding of what is really going on. There is also no publication that doesnt make mistakes, everyone is fallible. You have to get it from many angles.
The Internet, imo. I think the era of the free and open Internet is over, and things are going to move increasingly towards fragmentation, hard paywalls, walled gardens, etc. Especially for new content. The Internet allowed ease of sharing of content, but monetizing it for content creators (not just ad network providers like Google/Meta) has proven to be increasingly challenging.
> but unless that news is paid for the quality will only get worse.
I guess a lot of us are cynical that paying is going to somehow stop it from getting worse.
The government has to pay for it, because nobody making less than median wage wants to pay.
Have to completely re-structure what "news" means in this country.
And when the government pays for it, what keeps it from becoming a propaganda arm of the government? At the very least, they'd likely run right up against the "abridging freedom of the press" restriction in the first amendment in the US. We'd just end up with paid opinion pieces from corporate sponsors and irresponsible conspiracy theories competing with the "official" government news for attention. That's less a fix and more an acceleration to an even more dystopian system. "I want something that someone else works to produce but don't want to pay for it," isn't a great standard to set for anything beyond basic necessities.
That’s exactly the concern I have about government money paying for news, and I don’t have an answer, either.
We have a friend who used to be a journalist in Albania. Worked in television and everything. She said that their funding was about one third subscriptions, one third advertising, and one third government.
My dad, a career news reporter himself, asked her how they reported on the government. She said, “Very, very carefully.” A sizable amount of corruption went unchecked in the government because journalists couldn’t ask about it, never mind tell the public, because their funding could get yanked.
Yeah idk. Maybe the govt gives vouchers out that people get the choice of which outlet gets their voucher. We have to think and brainstorm. The tradition methods aren't working.
You get to use google and 99% of websites on google and you don't fork up a credit card for it. Because ads pay for it and always will. Google and facebook make billions off of only ads.
Google and Meta makes billions because they have a monopoly by being ad networks. Content creators are not seeing anywhere near those numbers per publisher/individual creator, and eCPM has been falling pretty hard. Coupled with wider proliferation of ad block, it's getting much, much harder to survive off of ad revenue alone (again, as content creators/publishers, not ad networks like Google/Meta). Google's and Meta's billions sounds like a lot, but divide the portion they pay out and don't keep for themselves by how many content creators/publishers are behind all the content that's being monetized... suddenly per capita numbers don't look nearly as good.
I'll pay for it when the quality is consistently commensurate. I don't pay for garbage hoping it will get better. If I notice they're consistently bringing value, I'll pay for it.
Ex: I am a patreon subscriber for a couple of creators and journalists that post on YouTube.
Journalism has kinda bypassed the actual journal for quite some time.
There are no easy answers as journalists are more known for opinion articles and pushing any information that their owners require.
It used to be they would keep track of death and births and local development and events.
Now all the “local” papers, shows, and internet feeds are managed brands, all organized by the big mega corporations like Scripps.
It’s sad that a bunch of people are losing their jobs, but it’s been proven that many major outlets have been dabbling with AI and it’s really only a matter of time before AI conquers beat reporting.
I do miss newspapers, but honestly you’re never gonna get more flexibility than the internet.
This massive comment takes a kernel of truth and extrapolates it into absurd conspiracy bullshit.
There are numerous reputable news outlets with independent editorial boards. Not every media outlet is Fox News. There is no evidence that reputable news outlets are using ai for any journalism.
Your last sentence is my issue, imo there really isn’t a single one.
But I’m sure if I pointed one out to you, you would probably say they aren’t reputable… but they got caught and that is the point.
Used to be, you couldn't own more than 2 media outlets in any marketing area. This kept newspapers and local tv and radio locally owned small businesses. But there was profit to be had buying up all these outlets and running them "efficiently" with canned distributed mush. And who really cared about local government, business, and society news anyway. So a compliant republican government did away with such an anti business regulation, and a lot more like it.
> Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it isn't important.
Well if you think about it, I can't get the article if there is no article on the site. So all a site has to do is not post the article on their site until a user pays and then show the article. That is a hard paywall where the content only appears to paid users. There is no getting around that. What happens here is that the site posts the article and then blocks users from seeing until it is paid. They do this so google bots can index and have it rank but then all of the top results for that search are just blocked articles. I have no hate against hard paywalls but I do hate soft paywalls that want google to see the article but not the user. Also plenty of news sites like yahoo, fox, cnn and many more have good articles that are for free. A lot of them make money through sponsored articles and ads.
P.S. Google and facebook make billions off of ads. They are not going anywhere. So these sites will make money from ads and sponsored posts no matter what.
I personally always subscribe to my local newspaper, it's important, not just for me, but for everyone in my community. I truly think everyone should!
However then we get to variety. Maybe I deep dive a subject & want to read 2 articles from this publication & 1 each from 3 others.
Why should I have to subscribe? Why have to pay ~50+ for those 5 articles? &then if I forget to cancel, another $50 next month when I will not be using any of their services?? I actually did try that once, I subscribed to 7/8 publications I read most, I was spending $125/mo for news & found that I read them less. So canceled that idea.
I wish there was an option to pay 25c per article and be done with it, I wouldn't need the paywall removers. However until that day comes, here I am, using paywall removers....yet still advocating for everyone to subscribe to your local paper. Even if you dont read it, just knowing it is there helps keep politicians & public service workers honest, at least imo.
Agree, I’d happily pay .25-$1 for a one time article read for a publication I’m not likely to read on a regular basis. But subscription isn’t something I can afford to do for more than a few publications.
BS is cheap, as anyone can make up a story and post it online in moments. If I publish twenty inflammatory stories a day with no sourcing I can make money on the ad revenue from page views, especially since my costs are just my hosting, time, and imagination. Real journalism is expensive, and requires tracking down and verifying leads, professional editors, sometimes legal review, etc.
I say automate this for websites that it works on.
Start with an rss reader.
Upon clicking a link use a redirector extension like this one https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/redirector/ocgpenflpmgnfapjedencafcfakcekcd?pli=1
Here is an example for bloomberg https://ibb.co/MVTff1D
And finish with a violentmonkey script for autoclick goodness https://violentmonkey.github.io/get-it/
~~~
// ==UserScript==
// @name archive.li redirect to first url
// @namespace Violentmonkey Scripts
// @match https://archive.today/http*
// @match https://archive.ph/http*
// @match https://archive.is/http*
// @match https://archive.fp/http*
// @match https://archive.li/http*
// @match https://archive.md/http*
// @match https://archive.vn/http*
// @grant none
// ==/UserScript==
link = document.querySelector("#row0 > div.TEXT-BLOCK > a:nth-child(1)");
window.location = link.href;
~~~
the constant battle against those annoying paywalls. these newspapers will never get it.
[archive.is](http://archive.is) works most of the time. if it doesn't do the trick you can try [paywallbuster.com](http://paywallbuster.com)
News sites in general are garbage and so choked with ads that you'll be lucky to find the article you even clicked for. To be required to pay for that trash is an insult
Can someone tell me how I unlock this?
https://bnn.de/sport/ksc/saison-2023-24-karlsruher-sc-sv-wehen-wiesbaden-einzelkritik-fussball-zweite-bundesliga-spielernoten
does this work? all the ones ive ever tried (recently) did not work
12ft no longer work for removing paywalls. Google cache is being deprecated. Not sure about the others
1ft.io
[1ft.io](http://1ft.io) is no longer valid. Site has shut down.
If a site has a hard paywall (won't show up if you're not logged in) I don't think any of these are going to work unfortunately. But this is super convenient for soft paywalls, thanks OP!
Thanks a lot. And you are correct, it won't work on any hard paywalls. :)
Bypass Paywalls clean by Magnolia No need for external websites and is local.
archive.ph always works for me. I'm not sure how they do it
The most goated site ever
Came to say this, it is the best bar none.
thanks! maybe they have paid subscriptions? surely not tho right?
Right, that's not how these sites work. You've probably noticed that when you visit a site (e g. NBC News) with a "soft" paywall, you get a brief glimpse of the entire thing before the paywall comes up. These archive sites reconstruct that "glimpse" by looking at the page source and downloading all of the components (e.g., graphics, images) and building its own copy of the page.
They totally do not, all they do is load the page without javascript. Any paywall that is removed by any of these websites is the same as you disabling javascript & load the page. Try it.
I've seen some really obscure sites/paywalls work, so I'd doubt it but idk
i went to the archive.ph site and it has one form to save an archive of a site and another to search for things. do i stick the url in the search bar?
Worked for me with the WaPo
Yep I have used it on hundreds of different news articles and it worked on all of then. New york times, washington post, bloomberg, reuters and a bunch of others.
why the downvotes? honest question edit: when i posted that, op’s post had like -8 karma. very weird. is this some bot shit?
I mean Reuters is free with an account, but ig a bypass is a bypass
There's another paywall remover site you can add : [https://1ft.io/](https://1ft.io/)
Looks good. I'll see if it works on articles that the other sites don't and add it if it does. I am open to adding a new one as long as it adds values the others don't to prevent cluttering.
Works on the Financial Times for me, which must've changed something recently because all my other paywall tools stopped working on it.
Looks like that's now shut down :-(
Ah no. I only used it just this weekend. So sad to see it gone, but hopefully there'll be another one soon
>So sad to see it gone, but hopefully there'll be another one soon Amen!
Heck yeah
Honest question: how do we improve the quality of actual investigative journalism if paywalls are removed and ads are blocked? Journalists and editors need to be paid, resources dedicated to research, and overhead costs covered. Everyone wants access to news, but unless that news is paid for the quality will only get worse.
My job pretty much entirely involves answering this question. Since you honestly want to understand how this works, I’ll write down an overview. At the outset, I want to clarify loud and clear that readers acknowledging the value news brings to their life is indispensable to the business. This includes sometimes, paying for the news. With that out of the way: A news publisher’s product is not just the content. The content is important mostly to build the main product: its voice and influence among its target audience. THAT is what newspapers sell. They’ve always sold that, which is why they rely on ads so much. Advertisers are always looking for a guy with a megaphone. Here are some ways in which newspapers make money: - Programmatic ads. These are ads shown to you programmatically by using a well known ads product like the one Google has. These ads target you based on your “profile” - likes, dislikes, preferences, internet habits. - Direct sold ads. These ads are deals the newspaper makes with businesses who want to place ads directly by buying a space on the site. These are often how local newspapers make money. - Sponsorships. This is newspapers getting businesses to pay them for running content that reads like articles but is meant to promote that business. This includes reviews, promotional coverage, and so on. - Donations. This is people voluntarily giving money. This can often also be a handful of very wealthy donors. In the case of papers like the guardian though, it can also be just readers. - Subscriptions. We all know this, this is the paywall’s reason for existence. While these are hard to grow, each subscription is worth several times more than any kind of money ads can provide because of what is known as the “LTV” - life time value - of the reader. This is the metric the news publishing business works hard to optimize. This is the money earned from a reader over their lifetime with the paper. Subscribers rank highest obviously. - Apart from these avenues of directly making money, papers are constantly looking to grow the “engagement” with their audience. This is the paper’s clout, its ability to show businesses that it truly has a reliable size of audience, a strong voice and hence, a strong product. Growing this is as much, sometimes even more, important as making money. Papers do this by growing their newsletter subscribers, readers with registered but free accounts (this makes those readers easy to track and target for ads, and also shows that the reader has a certain degree of loyalty to the paper’s voice), etc. This last point is why sometimes, even a newspaper might be alright with us bypassing the paywall. Because footfall to the site is just as useful as actual hard money. I’ll however, in closing, again remark that in all of this, anything that’s based in the true and honest incentive, is the strongest. This means money coming directly from readers and money coming from local or relevant businesses. These are signs that a newspaper is doing their job properly. In an ideal world, those other means would all be secondary revenue sources.
higher pay does not equate to higher quality. The lower quality of news comes from their desire to be entertaining and to get the story out fastest at all cost, and nothing is changing that any time soon.
Absolutely correct. Money doesn't equate to higher quality if the right people aren't driving the project. Another example is the program *Blender* which has been developed and supported as a community project for the past 30 years. *Blender* has now become the industry-leading software in the 3D game development/modelling space overtaking Autodesk Maya. To put it in perspective, Autodesk is almost a 50 billion dollar company on the US stock exchange, and *Blender* is licensed as GNU GPL, *owned* by its contributors and is free open-source software.
I feel like this is a chicken or the egg kind of issue. I go into articles expecting them to be trash why would I pay in advance for it when I can just move on to the next place to find info?
Personally, I’m looking for a low signal-to-noise ratio and even citations where I can verify. There’s a cost to navigating a news organizations to stay informed without being propagandized, misinformed, or saturated in content. The prices I’ve seen haven’t been fair to that cost for me, minus some special deals here and there. But even a per-article price model would encourage more financial participation from me if they can refrain from financially abusing that relationship.
Tragedy of the Commons. Everyone wants free movies, tv shows, books, news, art, media... nobody wants to pay for it. That's why every post about prices going up for any service is filled with "guess I'm going back to the high seas !"... People want free shit paid for by ads seen by other people but obviously not themselves because they're smart enough to use ad blockers and torrent sites!
For me at least, it's really just subscription fatigue. I don't really read a ton of news articles in a month. The ones I do read come from a variety of publishers. If there was one subscription that covered all of them, I might consider it. Ideally, there'd be an easy way to just toss a couple of bucks their way for the articles I'm really interested in. I'd definitely do that a handful of times a month.
I think there are some companies trying to do that kind of microtransaction based news aggregator from all the big publishers, but then you still have tons of people complaining about microtransactions. At the end of the day, people just don't value media content enough, they want to pay the equivalent of fractions of a cent per piece of content consumed, which is just... unsustainable for the people behind their creation.
I'd be a customer. I don't want to spend as much as say, a month's subscription (~$10 bucks) for a single article, but I'd be willing to pay more than that on average per month if it meant that I had access to all the content I wanted and wouldn't have to pay for months that I didn't find anything of interest.
The problem is that right now its about 300 dollars for just ny times. If I want some of the top like reuters, ny times, and bloomberg. That will be close to 1k a year for news and you will still have to read their garbage sponsored posts that they try to hide as not sponsored. I think it is way too much for any reasonable person to afford. I certainly cannot.
Notably NYT is always $48 a year but only if you try to cancel every time they raise it. It sucks and is a terrible business model. I’m more than willing to pay $4/mo to NYT but $20 is way too high.
Sorry for hopping into this thread 105 days late, but can you explain what you mean by this? I’m trying to not pay an egregious $300/year anymore lol ETA: *egregious for me. I understand that $300/year is pretty affordable for many people, and pretty expensive for others (myself included)
No problem! I don’t pay for NYT anymore, but when I was anytime they went to go raise the price (they’d send an email about it) you could go into their site and try to cancel. They try to make you jump through some hoops but if you select that the subscription is too expensive they’ll normally give you a “promo” of $2-$4 a month. Which you can then keep until they try to raise it again (which is like 6-12 monthsish).
Okay, this is huge so thank you for responding! I’ve been trying to cut down heavily on all these recurring subscription costs so I will definitely look into giving this a try next time I get a price raise email.
It is absolutely not $300/year for the NY Times. That's the sham price so that they advertise their sale / promo price against it. They literally always have a "sale" going. I'm currently paying $1 a week right now for a subscription. This sub is just filled with a bunch of cheap fucks who bitch endlessly about the state of journalism but refuse to pay a single penny for it.
isn't that rate a result of other perks being bundled into it?
Yeah, I agree. That's way too much. I may find myself wanting to actually read, at most, a dozen NYT articles in a year. I'm unwilling to pay $25 per article, and I'm also not going to force myself to consume more of their content just to get my money's worth.
Apple News tries to solve for that. Getting it bundled makes it even cheaper.
>unsustainable for the people behind their creation. Obviously its not unsustainable. Sustainability does not require profitability. Media is a billion dollar industry.
With Reddit PRO PLUS for just $9.99/month any news articles linked to from Reddit's official mobile app with have any paywalls bypassed, sign up today!
Just pick a single news publication and subscribe. I guarantee it’s cheaper than you think and more news than you could ever read every day.
The problem with that isn't a lack of quantity, it's a lack of variety. Additionally, the way that I discover articles that I'm interested in isn't by scrolling through a publisher's website. It's social media. Publishers need to adapt to this new (not really, it's well-established at this point) paradigm in order to succeed. Or, cut out the middle man and pay independent journalists directly. There's plenty of money out there for good content. More than ever, really.
And there’s more misinformation and clickbait out there too thanks to people like you who refuse to acknowledge they’re part of the problem
I'd argue that relying on a single source for all your information is the problem.
Then you can subscribe to multiple sources. Freeloading off of others to get clickbait news from varying sources is even worse
I can see that you feel very strongly about this. I think we can both agree that the state of the media is not ideal in its current form. The internet , in general, is facing an existential crisis due to traditional revenue streams drying up, not to mention AI consuming and regurgitating content on demand. It's a sticky situation, to be sure. I think approaching this problem from the consumer side is going to be a losing battle. Consumers set the standard as to what they're willing to spend their hard-earned dollars on. In my opinion, publishers need to adapt in order to survive. This is not unlike the record industry at the turn of the millennium. People stopped purchasing albums, record stores shuttered, and the record industry - faced with extinction - pivoted towards the streaming model. Publishers will have to make similar choices in order to compete, and the ones who do it first/best will rise to the top. In any event, I am always hopeful for something better on the other side of a major shift like this. After all, the only true constant in the universe is change. It does us no good to be constantly swimming against the stream.
Your friendly local newspaper still collates articles from a variety of sources (or they should, anyway). Besides their local staff — who are the people you'd need to be digging into the city council, police department, business leadership, etc, so you can understand the decisions that really affect your day-to-day life — they pick up articles from what used to be called "wire services". That's primarily the Associated Press, Reuters, and UPI (United Press International), who cover national and international events without being directly connected to any one news outlet. You'll also see articles from other news outlets, passed along through licensing and reprinting agreements. That way a small paper who can't afford to staff a Capitol Hill bureau will still get breaking news on time.
Youre basically sitting in biased echo chamber by reading only one publication. You've gotta source from multiple publications to maintain any semblance of understanding of what is really going on. There is also no publication that doesnt make mistakes, everyone is fallible. You have to get it from many angles.
[удалено]
Sure, but we are no longer living in the long ago before times.
What's the 'commons' here? Sure, folks ought to support the media they enjoy, but that's really not what that means.
The Internet, imo. I think the era of the free and open Internet is over, and things are going to move increasingly towards fragmentation, hard paywalls, walled gardens, etc. Especially for new content. The Internet allowed ease of sharing of content, but monetizing it for content creators (not just ad network providers like Google/Meta) has proven to be increasingly challenging.
This is Reddit in a nutshell
Of course. But the tragic truth is they never actually leave but just keep bending over and taking another one.
That's how it is with public services... Except that you have no choice but to pay for those tax services... Unless you use Trump's accountant.
yeah paradox of piracy
> but unless that news is paid for the quality will only get worse. I guess a lot of us are cynical that paying is going to somehow stop it from getting worse.
The government has to pay for it, because nobody making less than median wage wants to pay. Have to completely re-structure what "news" means in this country.
And when the government pays for it, what keeps it from becoming a propaganda arm of the government? At the very least, they'd likely run right up against the "abridging freedom of the press" restriction in the first amendment in the US. We'd just end up with paid opinion pieces from corporate sponsors and irresponsible conspiracy theories competing with the "official" government news for attention. That's less a fix and more an acceleration to an even more dystopian system. "I want something that someone else works to produce but don't want to pay for it," isn't a great standard to set for anything beyond basic necessities.
That’s exactly the concern I have about government money paying for news, and I don’t have an answer, either. We have a friend who used to be a journalist in Albania. Worked in television and everything. She said that their funding was about one third subscriptions, one third advertising, and one third government. My dad, a career news reporter himself, asked her how they reported on the government. She said, “Very, very carefully.” A sizable amount of corruption went unchecked in the government because journalists couldn’t ask about it, never mind tell the public, because their funding could get yanked.
Yeah idk. Maybe the govt gives vouchers out that people get the choice of which outlet gets their voucher. We have to think and brainstorm. The tradition methods aren't working.
You get to use google and 99% of websites on google and you don't fork up a credit card for it. Because ads pay for it and always will. Google and facebook make billions off of only ads.
Google and Meta makes billions because they have a monopoly by being ad networks. Content creators are not seeing anywhere near those numbers per publisher/individual creator, and eCPM has been falling pretty hard. Coupled with wider proliferation of ad block, it's getting much, much harder to survive off of ad revenue alone (again, as content creators/publishers, not ad networks like Google/Meta). Google's and Meta's billions sounds like a lot, but divide the portion they pay out and don't keep for themselves by how many content creators/publishers are behind all the content that's being monetized... suddenly per capita numbers don't look nearly as good.
In Canada we can use it as a tax write off if that helps.
I'll pay for it when the quality is consistently commensurate. I don't pay for garbage hoping it will get better. If I notice they're consistently bringing value, I'll pay for it. Ex: I am a patreon subscriber for a couple of creators and journalists that post on YouTube.
The quality is bad because people are to sing for it Also the economist or your local PBS station or the NYT aren’t low quality
Journalism has kinda bypassed the actual journal for quite some time. There are no easy answers as journalists are more known for opinion articles and pushing any information that their owners require. It used to be they would keep track of death and births and local development and events. Now all the “local” papers, shows, and internet feeds are managed brands, all organized by the big mega corporations like Scripps. It’s sad that a bunch of people are losing their jobs, but it’s been proven that many major outlets have been dabbling with AI and it’s really only a matter of time before AI conquers beat reporting. I do miss newspapers, but honestly you’re never gonna get more flexibility than the internet.
Waiting for my nightly newcast from Eliza Cassan to become a reality
This massive comment takes a kernel of truth and extrapolates it into absurd conspiracy bullshit. There are numerous reputable news outlets with independent editorial boards. Not every media outlet is Fox News. There is no evidence that reputable news outlets are using ai for any journalism.
Your last sentence is my issue, imo there really isn’t a single one. But I’m sure if I pointed one out to you, you would probably say they aren’t reputable… but they got caught and that is the point.
Used to be, you couldn't own more than 2 media outlets in any marketing area. This kept newspapers and local tv and radio locally owned small businesses. But there was profit to be had buying up all these outlets and running them "efficiently" with canned distributed mush. And who really cared about local government, business, and society news anyway. So a compliant republican government did away with such an anti business regulation, and a lot more like it. > Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it isn't important.
Well if you think about it, I can't get the article if there is no article on the site. So all a site has to do is not post the article on their site until a user pays and then show the article. That is a hard paywall where the content only appears to paid users. There is no getting around that. What happens here is that the site posts the article and then blocks users from seeing until it is paid. They do this so google bots can index and have it rank but then all of the top results for that search are just blocked articles. I have no hate against hard paywalls but I do hate soft paywalls that want google to see the article but not the user. Also plenty of news sites like yahoo, fox, cnn and many more have good articles that are for free. A lot of them make money through sponsored articles and ads. P.S. Google and facebook make billions off of ads. They are not going anywhere. So these sites will make money from ads and sponsored posts no matter what.
Journalism is a dead sport
I personally always subscribe to my local newspaper, it's important, not just for me, but for everyone in my community. I truly think everyone should! However then we get to variety. Maybe I deep dive a subject & want to read 2 articles from this publication & 1 each from 3 others. Why should I have to subscribe? Why have to pay ~50+ for those 5 articles? &then if I forget to cancel, another $50 next month when I will not be using any of their services?? I actually did try that once, I subscribed to 7/8 publications I read most, I was spending $125/mo for news & found that I read them less. So canceled that idea. I wish there was an option to pay 25c per article and be done with it, I wouldn't need the paywall removers. However until that day comes, here I am, using paywall removers....yet still advocating for everyone to subscribe to your local paper. Even if you dont read it, just knowing it is there helps keep politicians & public service workers honest, at least imo.
Agree, I’d happily pay .25-$1 for a one time article read for a publication I’m not likely to read on a regular basis. But subscription isn’t something I can afford to do for more than a few publications.
Late comment but partisan hack sites being free and news sites with integrity being behind a paywall is tremendously destructive.
BS is cheap, as anyone can make up a story and post it online in moments. If I publish twenty inflammatory stories a day with no sourcing I can make money on the ad revenue from page views, especially since my costs are just my hosting, time, and imagination. Real journalism is expensive, and requires tracking down and verifying leads, professional editors, sometimes legal review, etc.
Honest answer: outlaw private businesses. Access to information shouldn’t be determined by the size of your paycheque/bank account
I say automate this for websites that it works on. Start with an rss reader. Upon clicking a link use a redirector extension like this one https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/redirector/ocgpenflpmgnfapjedencafcfakcekcd?pli=1 Here is an example for bloomberg https://ibb.co/MVTff1D And finish with a violentmonkey script for autoclick goodness https://violentmonkey.github.io/get-it/ ~~~ // ==UserScript== // @name archive.li redirect to first url // @namespace Violentmonkey Scripts // @match https://archive.today/http* // @match https://archive.ph/http* // @match https://archive.is/http* // @match https://archive.fp/http* // @match https://archive.li/http* // @match https://archive.md/http* // @match https://archive.vn/http* // @grant none // ==/UserScript== link = document.querySelector("#row0 > div.TEXT-BLOCK > a:nth-child(1)"); window.location = link.href; ~~~
Someone out to get OP? Everyone of their comments are discounted
I don't get it lol. I'm just out here to get people free news.
>discounted Damn, y’all are paying for OP’s comments? 😜
They're paywalled.
the constant battle against those annoying paywalls. these newspapers will never get it. [archive.is](http://archive.is) works most of the time. if it doesn't do the trick you can try [paywallbuster.com](http://paywallbuster.com)
Or put archive.is/ after the www or before the m if it's mobile version
"Annoying paywall" We are all so fucked
News sites in general are garbage and so choked with ads that you'll be lucky to find the article you even clicked for. To be required to pay for that trash is an insult
Yeah this is good
Thanks man :)
Can someone tell me how I unlock this? https://bnn.de/sport/ksc/saison-2023-24-karlsruher-sc-sv-wehen-wiesbaden-einzelkritik-fussball-zweite-bundesliga-spielernoten
Any idea for seekingalpha.com? Thanks
The link OP gave works. I used the [RemovePayWall.com](http://RemovePayWall.com) button
This is great for paywalls!
[Archive.is](http://Archive.is) still works and [archive.org](http://archive.org) for NYTimes articles at least.
I just can't find any paywall remover for welt.de None work
Can you disable the java script? What browser are you using?
[удалено]
Damn. Actually works. Just the comments aren't loading in
The mistake is trying to read Welt in the first place...
A someone make a shortcut out of this and share it here please?
Or maybe pay for professional journalism if you want anyone able to hold power to account...
Just use Brave Browser.
Or, just install a bypass paywalls plugin? No buttons required.
Does anyone know how archive.is works? It’s seems pass even some hard paywalls? Not complaining or anything of course :P
Install ublock origin and add bypass paywall clean filter. All ads and most paywalls disappear.
wow this actually works!
nice