[matthewrobertso]

No I don't, I disable JavaScript and read what they served google in the first place.

If I went to a public water fountain and found that someone had turned it into a coca cola dispensing machine, I wouldn't be happy and wouldn't pay to use it.

"Journalists" creating pay walls, using SEO tactics to push their articles into my search results, and then trying to extract rent don't deserve money.

[carlosjobim]

You despise the people writing the content you want to read, at the same time that you are demanding to access their works for free. Do you also work for free for any stranger?

[phone[phone]]

Where in the parent post did the poster say they "despised" the people writing the content?

[carlosjobim]

Calling them "journalists" instead of journalists.

[matthewrobertso]

No, I don't want to read their content. I want to find an answer to my search query.

If the search results are full of paywalled articles that claim to have text relevant to my query, but won't show me the article because publishers are trying to extract money from me, the publishers of those articles have made my task harder and shouldn't be rewarded. This is a form of spam.

[janalsncm]

In this case I think your beef is with Google and not the paywalled sites. A newspaper is going to do whatever it takes to keep the lights on, and if that means forcing people to pay, so be it.

For Google, they have made a product decision about how to treat paywalled content. They don’t care. It hurts the user experience but the days when Google cared about improving their search experience are long gone.

[carlosjobim]

> I want to find an answer to my search query.

And sometimes the answer is behind a paywall. It's not spam at all. On the contrary, spam is always free.

[matthewrobertso]

There is always a free source with the answer somewhere. The trouble comes when the free sources are pushed far down in the results by legacy brands.

When this happens, I will continue to pretend to be google to access the content they are pushing. If publishers want to change this behavior they could try not letting Google index it, so I don't need to see it in my search results.

[carlosjobim]

Your argument boils down to "I want free stuff", as I see it. Okay, but why in the world should Google care about what you want in the search results then? You do not bring any value and will not bring any future value.

For other users, they see value in having paywalled results if they are the best results, because they do not have a block against paying for content.

If you for example search for a movie on Google, they'll show you paid options to watch it on streaming services or rent it from streaming services. That's good and what should be expected from a search engine.

Paying for stuff is how the world works. If a restaurant boasts about having the nicest steaks, you're not going to get a free steak just to be sure that it's good.

But I really think it is time for a better way to pay for content and articles instead of having to subscribe to each source.

[matthewrobertso]

I don't think you understand my argument as you are making a second food analogy (first coke, now steak). Please read my response to your first food analogy as it applies to both food analogies.