this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
132 points (99.3% liked)

Asklemmy

44127 readers
258 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I've been donating to the news site Vox for a while now, and all their content has so far been free. I felt kinda bad about blocking the ads on their site and fast-forwarding through all the ad breaks in their podcasts. So in the spirit of actually supporting something I like, I started chipping in a few bucks a month.

But recently, they've started putting some of their articles behind a paywall. Since I was already donating, I automatically have access. But for some reason, I feel like I don't wanna pay anymore. It's not like it costs me more, but there's just something about dontating to a free site vs paying for exclusive content that doesn't feel the same. Maybe cuz I'm not a fan of paywalls in general, so I don't want to support companies that implement them.

Does that make sense? What would you do? And if you're not a fan of Vox, maybe think of some other free service/content, like videos from a streamer or a software project or something.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago (2 children)

But recently, they’ve started putting some of their articles behind a paywall. Since I was already donating, I automatically have access.

In that case I don't see a problem. In a lot of ways your donation became a subscription, but then again, news cost money to make. This was true during the print days, and is no less true during the digital age.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Justifying prices is an oxymoron.

Either there’s a case for giving them money, or the basis of payment is the value being obtained in the article. Arguing for a price based on the costs behind it mixes the two frames and creates confusion.

It’s a law of demeter violation.

Once the paywall goes up, OP’s healthiest decision-making frame is “is consuming this content worth $X to me or not?”. If they wanted OP to worry about how much it costs to make news, they should have left it voluntary.

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I see OPs point. I donate to Wikipedia, because I love what they do and want to support them. If they decided to put up pay walls, my personal feelings on their model would alter. Even if I got access as a doner.

I would no longer be inclined to donate, because I would no longer believe in what they do.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's like how the panhandlers started blocking my way and requiring a toll payment to get to the subway.

Just like that.

It's like my donation became a subscription.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

No but you bring up a good example: You don't get your sub for donating money to Subway. You have to pay them to get it. But in return, it provides a - questionable, some would say - service to you by providing you with food.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Subway never gave subs for free. This is a bad faith argument.

In order for it to work Sunday would have had to offer subs to anyone for free. You donate, because you like what they are doing. They become a paid service, your donation no longer supports the ability for people to eat for free.

This is an entirely different scenario and is not a good rebuttal