[tonystubblebine]

Not sure it's obvious, but that article only exists because of medium's paywall. That subscription money goes to the author, and in the case of that publication, also editors. I can understand why someone might not want to be a medium customer yet, but I don't see how cursing them is warranted.

[spinach]

Early tech bros built the internet on the idea of everything should be free (even if at the same time they idolized billionaire CEOs) and now the idea of free is pervasive and things like journalism, a pillar of democracy is failing.

[tonystubblebine]

Exactly. I'm excited for the pendulum to swing back to pay. I don't understand why I'm being downvoted for that. Pay is so obviously better for the consumer, especially a tech consumer. I know not all of us who read HN are making FB salaries, but we all have pretty good earning potential. And so the ROI on paying $5 to read smarter, more curated, more accurate information seems like a no brainer.

I'm excited to exchange money to get back my time and to get smarter.

[gdubs]

They were more “Deadheads” than “tech bros”.

Paywalls annoy me too. That said, for historical accuracy, the idea that content should be free of charge was hotly debated in the early days of the Internet and WWW. People like Jaron Lanier felt that online discourse would suffer if there wasn’t some nominal cost to, say, sending an email.

[RenRav]

>People like Jaron Lanier felt that online discourse would suffer if there wasn’t some nominal cost to, say, sending an email.

Interesting, and I think to some extent it is true.