[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.

[carlosjobim]

Information has always been paid for, whether it's news, books or magazines. If you expect for something to be free just because it's found on a search engine, I don't know where you got that from. I think my examples for music and movies that I've given in this thread are worth considering.

It's like if a friend of yours takes you to a nice Mexican place. Why would you expect to get a burrito al Pastor to eat for free, just because you eat for free when you visit relatives? Nobody said it would be free.

[matthewrobertso]

Really, a third food analogy? Is this satire?