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.
Journalism isn’t free. For a different type of service, I would reconsider if I wanted to continue supporting them. But good journalism is disappearing, so I think if you’re in a position to help keep it going, you should.
Yes. By replacing your voluntary charity with a payment scheme, they’ve deprived you of the value of giving.
They changed the deal. It’s perfectly rational to want to stop consuming their content.
Whether you do is up to you, but you’re not crazy or anything for feeling deprived.
The industries supporting journalism have basically collapsed over the past few decades. If you have the means to support decent research and writing, please do so.
Agreed. 404media is one I pay and support.
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.
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.
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.
