• deweydecibel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Buddy, people have been paying for news since the first paper was printed and someone paid for it in whatever coin they had. It needs income, that’s just how it is.

    What happened was the internet came along and advertisers started footing the bill entirely while readers got it into their heads that news was an inherently free thing, and that it’s somehow shameful for newspapers to seek income. That advertising-only model has stopped being a sufficent source of income, so the price is now being placed back on the readers directly, as it had been for centuries before the first internet article was published. It’s not unusual or new, but it would certainly feel that way to someone that was raised by the internet.

    • Void_Reader@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think the difference here is paying for a single newspaper vs having to get recurring subscriptions that are a pain to cancel. With print media, if I want to check multiple sources’ take on an issue, I could go out and buy 5 different newspapers, and that’s it. But with online news, I’d have to spend like an hour cancelling all the subscriptions after I’m done and if I forget to cancel any i’ll realise when I’m down like £50 6 months later.

      Also don’t like having to enter personal details into so many websites.

      Thank god for Archive.org.

      I wonder why no news company has tried the ‘buy today’s digital newspaper for £1 and that’s that’ approach. I could be wrong and maybe someone has, haven’t seen it though.