> At the core of ethical considerations is a profound respect for content creators. Recognizing the time, effort, and resources invested in producing quality journalism is crucial. By acknowledging the value of this work, users can approach paywall removal with a sense of responsibility and an understanding of the potential impact on the financial sustainability of news outlets.
Content providers want it both ways. They want revenue, hence paywalls, but they also want clicks from search engines. In order to get clicks, they have to open up to search and archive engines. I’ve seen this to varying degrees. Some really is subscriber only.
One site just strips JavaScript, which one can do with browser extensions on a site-by-site basis. Safari Reader often bypasses paywalls, not even requiring an extension.
In a search-driven internet, full paywalls make you irrelevant. And even with “exclusive” content, what’s going to happen as synthetic content floods the internet, as it is doing already. How will one judge “quality”?
Back on point, I have bookmarked the site, especially since archive today (archive.XY) always puts up a CAPTCHA when I use iCloud Private Relay.
Seems like this person made a paywall removal website 30 days ago and then 4 days ago claims they "found" it. Probably spam, particularly since they have other flagged/dead postings that look like spam and claim they "found" the site.
I think if the post is interesting, useful and not harmful for the community, it doesn't matter who posted it for what reason. Maybe the author just didn't want to expose him/herself as such.