I started to notice some people posting NYT, Bloomberg or other websites with hard paywalls, that leads to people in the comments that are unable to read the article to discuess the headline without any analysis and some times spreading misinformation, which cannot be countered by the article, due to the paywall.
Which bring me to this: Why does no one thought about blocking hard paywalled articles for the sake of quality of discussion?
So we shouldn’t have communities around videogames (or board games), professional sports, traveling, food, clothes, most hobbies, or anything else, because it costs money? Even in a bookbclub, the library won’t have 15 copies of the same book, some people will have to buy it, unless your book club comprises 2 people.
You get what you pay for is exactly right.
IME this is not so much a problem because people are using ebooks and you can digitally check out books from other libraries than the one closest to you. If there is a lack of copies, that could be grounds for going with a different book.
This is not at all what I’m saying. Does wanting to ban paywall links equate to wanting journalism to die? No, but it makes sense to do, and if it making sense to do conflicts with the business model, that’s not a moral problem because people aren’t obligated to help companies make their (imo stupid and harmful in this case) decisions work out for them.
So it makes sense to ban discussing games that are not open source, discussing movies not in the public domain and sports that charge for tickets?
A better analogy would be a ban on posts that are just a link to a Steam page or a ticket sale page. In which case, yeah, makes sense, that’s spam.
That doesn’t have anything to do with the discussion. Either you want to ban paid content or you don’t.