|
|
|
|
|
|
by rmah
2145 days ago
|
|
|
It's annoying that the author takes the original article about paywalls by Nathan Robinson so literally at some points. For example, the Robinson wrote "Creators must be compensated well. But at the same time we have to try to keep things that are important and profound from getting locked away where few people will see them." To which the commenter replied "None of the above is true." Then explains that only some creators and some works should be compensated well. As if it wasn't clear that the Robinson was referring to creators and works that he felt was of value. In rebuttal, he only provides his opinion that "I happen to believe that in most areas of creative work, and in most adjacent industries, giving more away for $0 online would improve outcomes for most players, overall." without any evidence that is the case for journalism (or even software for that matter). Not even a weak "logical" argument. Perhaps he's right, perhaps he's not. I don't know, it it's annoying that this response has somehow hit #2 on HN. It's as weak as this post :-) |
|
|
> ... the problem here is evident: black-and-white, either-or thinking.
If you put the problem in terms of creators needing to be well paid, on the one hand, and their creations needing to be free and universally accessible, on the other, you've set yourself up a zero-sum cage match. The first quote I pulled from Nathan was more nuanced than that, lamenting paywalls but accepting them, because "it's complicated". The second quote I pulled, from the end of Nathan's piece, puts things more absolutely, leaving less hope.
If the problem is being stuck between the rock of creator comp and the hard place of free, universal access, the solution is recognizing that neither of those is absolute, immovable, or perfect. Not all creation requires or deserves compensation. Not all information needs be free and convenient to everyone.
If you stop thinking of open/closed and free/paid as toggle switches, and embrace that they're actually pretty fine-grained dials, it's no longer a war between creators and consumers, and there are lots of practical things to try. Find the optimum balance in the situation and over time. As I suggest:
> When the works we need or want come readily available at affordable costs that we can pay, and paying is easy, there’s no great harm to access or progress or truth. That cost many not be great. But if a great many pay it, the results can be.
To make that more concrete: I don't think I'd pay $10 a month for Current Affairs. But I'd darn sure pay $3. Or up to $10, scaling up with how many articles I read in a month. Perhaps on top of free access to an archive of articles more than a year old.
I'm not sure how this ended up on HN, either.