More and more sites are going joining the forces of evil with the dreaded PAYWALLS.

It's such a drag to have to pay for something you've been enjoying free for years.

Oh well.

 

So have you succumbed to any? If so, which ones?

 

I finally caved and paid for the Washington Post. I don't regret it either. An amazing resource even for those that don't like their editorial bias. I'm considering The Forward. But none others are currently on my paydar (groan). Well I can get by on their article limits anyway (LA Times, NY Times, The New Yorker).

 

A post containing a link to a porn site has been removed:

 

3) You will not post about activities or links to websites containing such material that are illegal in Thailand. This includes but is not limited to: gambling, betting, pornography, illegal drugs, fake goods/clothing, file sharing of pirated material, pyramid schemes, etc. Discussion of the above is permitted only as news items, but never as a "how to" topic.

Oh. I wasn't really talking about porn sites. Newspapers and magazines etc.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

I understand paywalls and they make sense. It cost a lot of money to write and publish good information.

 

Until now I only subscribed to a computer magazine online and offline.

 

I read The Guardian a lot and until now they have no paywall. But they want that people donate.

I would even consider donating money to them because lots of information is very good. But then there are some crazy feminist articles and somehow I guess these fanatics are also paid. I really don't want to support these crazy feminists and this is why I don't pay them any money.

None 

 

a) I'm a cheapskate 

 

b) I'm a computer geek - in most cases I can find ways round them in less time than it would take me to earn the money to pay the fees - anyway the hacker in me like the challenge.

 

If I did pay for one it would be the FT

Paying for news with millions of free news sites on internet 

1 minute ago, Cheops said:

Paying for news with millions of free news sites on internet 

If you're just talking about generic AP feeds, you're right.

Content on some sites is very unique and in my view special. 

Someone has always had to pay for it but with print subscriptions going away, ad revenue isn't enough. 

Why anyone would pay for the Washington Post or the New York Times is beyond me.  Yes, they have a "pay-wall" but only for those people who don't bother to right-click on the link and choose "open link in incognito window" (for the Chrome browser, but similar procedure and wording for other browsers).  Both of these media organizations use your cookies against you to determine if you have viewed the maximum number of free articles they allow you to read each month.  Using incognito windows prevents them from using your cookies against you.  I really thought everyone already knew this, but if not here you go.  Enjoy!

2 minutes ago, skatewash said:

Why anyone would pay for the Washington Post or the New York Times is beyond me.  Yes, they have a "pay-wall" but only for those people who don't bother to right-click on the link and choose "open link in incognito window" (for the Chrome browser, but similar procedure and wording for other browsers).  Both of these media organizations use your cookies against you to determine if you have viewed the maximum number of free articles they allow you to read each month.  Using incognito windows prevents them from using your cookies against you.  I really thought everyone already knew this, but if not here you go.  Enjoy!

I tried that but it eventually stops. I tried using multiple browsers on different devices. The thing is, I read it A LOT. So I'm their target customer, someone that reads it A LOT. C'est la vie. I don't care if people call me stupid for paying for one site. People can also call people greedy and thieves for gaming the system to get stuff free that businesses are trying to charge for. It all balances out. 

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

If you're just talking about generic AP feeds, you're right.

Content on some sites is very unique and in my view special. 

Someone has always had to pay for it but with print subscriptions going away, ad revenue isn't enough. 

If it's a big news site (and thus have sufficient traffic) and they do good ads it will be enough. 

News is always available on multiple sites and sources. The only thing those paid news sites have are some extra collumn articles etc. 

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I tried that but it eventually stops. I tried using multiple browsers on different devices. The thing is, I read it A LOT. 

 

I read them both a lot, too.  I just don't pay for it because they have set up their "pay-wall" so that you are not required to pay for it.  The Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, does not allow access without a subscription.  WaPo and NYT could do the same thing if they wanted to, but they have a different business model apparently.  I have no objection to someone who wishes to pay for something they don't have to as long as they understand it's not necessary. 

 

You might take the view that WaPo and NYT are just taking advantage of the lack of technological sophistication in their readership, but you don't have to look at it like that if you don't want to.  It's all good, not everyone wants to be a special friend of Rick's. ???? 

https://www.traileraddict.com/casablanca/special-friends

Too many free sources of information are available on the Internet.  I'm sure not going to pay to be fed main-stream pablum which I can easily get from Reuters or AP for free, not to mention the polarized editorial bias that you get 'baked into' the deal.  The 'Free Press' is anything but free.  It's an interconnected conglomerate headed by 6 media corporations all with a liberal bias and an agenda. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Cheops said:

Paying for news with millions of free news sites on internet 

How about paying for quality news?

 

And the other sites are not free. It's like facebook, some people think it's free and then they are surprised that that free service sells all their personal data...

On 10/12/2018 at 2:31 PM, Jingthing said:

Oh. I wasn't really talking about porn sites. Newspapers and magazines etc.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Have you tried Breitbart News? It's still free! 

In response to Connda's post, exaaaactly...you are paying taxes/giving tax cuts that "disappear" into these folks pockets to help them alter your perception in ways that further their profits. As we know from Wikileaks, memos and other Clinton campaign correspondence, it has been shown some of these groups were taking direct orders from the Clinton campaign, I beleive it was Washington Post and New York Times. Its about profit/propaganda not reportage. To take just one example, these are the same outlets that allowed the lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.   According to former head accountant during the Clinton years at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Catherine Anne Fitz, 26 trillion US tax dollars (and counting) since the 90's are untraceable or have essentially disappeared. Do you suppose...? Never enough.  And of course since it is all on the web they are also directly monitoring how you use their websites so money from that data as well. Yeah! Send 'em your money!

13 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

How about paying for quality news?

 

And the other sites are not free. It's like facebook, some people think it's free and then they are surprised that that free service sells all their personal data...

Quality news?

News is news, no matter how you bring it. 

 

And yes, lots of services sell your personal data, but everybody knows this, so never share anything more than you want. Yes, they have my name and my preferences for articles and stuff, but that's about it. No phone numbers etc.

16 minutes ago, Cheops said:

Quality news?

News is news, no matter how you bring it. 

 

And yes, lots of services sell your personal data, but everybody knows this, so never share anything more than you want. Yes, they have my name and my preferences for articles and stuff, but that's about it. No phone numbers etc.

Might I correct that for you?

Yes, they have my A name and my SOME preferences for articles and stuff, but that's about it, other than an ANONYMOUS email address.

 

May I point you all at a very useful free News Aggregator? For sure some of the stuff behind paywalls is still unavailable but there are so many sources of so much news and information that it really doesn't matter....IMO, of course! You do have to make the effort to set it up, I find it worthwhile.

 

Well, as a matter of principle, if every news site had a pay wall, I still wouldn't subscribe to any site that's owned by Rupert Murdoch, as I can be sure it will be pushing his agenda (climate denial, lowering wages, demonising the poor), which is not in my best interests at all. His companies pay no tax of course, and in Australia at least, receive large government handouts. I will pay for quality writing, but so far (being poor/a  cheap Charlie) have avoided the need to do so.  I like the quality of article I see in the Atlantic, but dip into it only occasionally.  I'm learning to do the same with the New Yorker. I'm willing to donate to Salon. Some Washington Post articles I can read on other sites (SFGate and Fairfax in Australia). 

14 minutes ago, Cheops said:

Quality news?

News is news, no matter how you bring it. 

Yeah, just like fox "news".

This world would be a lot better if we would have quality news and not all that crap which some people think is news.

16 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Yeah, just like fox "news".

This world would be a lot better if we would have quality news and not all that crap which some people think is news.

FN - one of the great oxymorons of our time (only IMO for the lawyers!) ????

 

Sadly, good news doesn't interest much of the mainstream media and fake news does. Even more sadly the general public are much the same! It's the world we inhabit. 

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Yeah, just like fox "news".

This world would be a lot better if we would have quality news and not all that crap which some people think is news.

Absolutely agree with your post.

 

The problem is that all media work to their own agenda; the so-called media bias.  I therefore try to get a more balanced view of world events by reading/ watching my news items from across a spectrum of sources; and then, of course, form my own opinion.

10 minutes ago, allanos said:

Absolutely agree with your post.

 

The problem is that all media work to their own agenda; the so-called media bias.  I therefore try to get a more balanced view of world events by reading/ watching my news items from across a spectrum of sources; and then, of course, form my own opinion.

Me too. That's why I like to use a News Aggregator (see my #17). All the sources you want are displayed with one click or tap. For fairness, there are several - I just like the one I suggested.

On 10/12/2018 at 7:31 PM, Jingthing said:

Oh. I wasn't really talking about porn sites. Newspapers and magazines etc.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Don't you still have access to your alma mater's library. I get all the news sites from mine; plus many more fee-based data bases for free.

If it's a big news site (and thus have sufficient traffic) and they do good ads it will be enough. 
News is always available on multiple sites and sources. The only thing those paid news sites have are some extra collumn articles etc. 

I'm happy with the paid service. I regret now not doing it sooner. I plan to renew indefinitely. Don't judge!

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

28 minutes ago, allanos said:

34 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Yeah, just like fox "news".

This world would be a lot better if we would have quality news and not all that crap which some people think is news.

Absolutely agree with your post.

 

The problem is that all media work to their own agenda; the so-called media bias.  I therefore try to get a more balanced view of world events by reading/ watching my news items from across a spectrum of sources; and then, of course, form my own opinion.

I have to admit I almost gave up even trying to get correct news.

Syria is a prime example. Who can people trust for accurate news? I guess even 10 sources in that country would have 10 different versions of the truth. And if then the (biased) news organizations print and show a couple of minutes everyday, how should we know the truth?

 

Another prime example was the BBC news about events in Bangkok in 2010. I was here at that time and what BBC and others reported was somehow very different from my experience here. And it seems lots of people who live here agree with me on that one. So now when I look at some BBS news I ask myself: How should I know if that is the truth?

 

And then there are of course "news" about Brexit, Trump, and many other issues. Looking at different news providers on the same day is sometimes like: Are they really reporting about the same event?

 

I understand paywalls and they make sense. It cost a lot of money to write and publish good information.
 
Until now I only subscribed to a computer magazine online and offline.
 
I read The Guardian a lot and until now they have no paywall. But they want that people donate.
I would even consider donating money to them because lots of information is very good. But then there are some crazy feminist articles and somehow I guess these fanatics are also paid. I really don't want to support these crazy feminists and this is why I don't pay them any money.

I agree with the Guardian's philosophy on that. I read it occasionally but honestly even if I read it a lot I probably wouldn't donate. Does that make me a bad person? The problem with media organs of national importance and record like Wap and NYT having paywalls is that then most of their readership will be more elite not so much always financially but intellectually. It really would be much better if such content was easily free to all. More than article limits. But alas this trend of paywalls keeps growing. Oh well.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Have you tried Breitbart News? It's still free! 

Propaganda. I pay for Thai cable which includes Fox so I get more than enough of that flavor of stuff.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

For all my news, I just come here to Thai Visa. Free !

2 minutes ago, wgdanson said:

For all my news, I just come here to Thai Visa. Free !

I'm glad your avatar includes the question mark after "Older but wiser?"

I subscribe to the Sydney Morning Herald, about $14 AUD a month I think.