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?

  • CubitOom@infosec.pubEnglish
    531·
    2 days ago

    Because it is the original data source which can be used to find non paywall archives using tools such as https://archive.ph/

    I think it’s always good practice to link the original source.

      • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
        2·
        1 day ago

        This is called a “velvet rope paywall”. The idea is to keep the content open to indexing while strongly encouraging human readers to cough up. It’s a decent idea IMO, as are (easily subverted) metered paywalls.

    • Cat@ponder.catOPEnglish
      319·
      1 day ago

      Why not block both as orginal links?

      No paywalls or Archive links.

      • CubitOom@infosec.pubEnglish
        17·
        1 day ago

        If you block data sources because you fear misinformation, then you also can’t discuss the misinformation/propaganda you disprove of. If you don’t allow that information to be posted, it is still being read by many many people that now have less chances of being informed about it being misinformation.

        I don’t think limiting information is ever a good solution

        Also, I agree with your reply on beehaw.

        You can post third party source that discuess the orginal article and that way you can gurantee accessibility and almost full info.

        https://infosec.pub/comment/14276780