1. Users have to be able to find and read interesting content.
2. Content publishers have to be able to make enough money so that they continue to find it economical to produce content.
"First click free" was the compromise solution for this. Google's incentives actually run both ways - if they couldn't use paywalls, most content sites would probably use AdSense or DoubleClick, both Google products. But it's unlikely that a site like The Economist or The New York Times could continue to produce quality articles off AdSense revenue alone.
I didn't say "Paywalls break the web", I have no problem with paywalls, I have a problem with the way The Economist is using URLs.
URLs are the standard for accessing web documents. A URL is a universal identifier. The referrer is not part of a URL. The Economist's use of URLs is breaking the web.
Well consider this - A google user finds a link, doesn't realize there is a paywall and shares the link with the rest of the web. Now the rest of the web has to go through google to get to the link. That sounds broken to me.
1. Users have to be able to find and read interesting content.
2. Content publishers have to be able to make enough money so that they continue to find it economical to produce content.
"First click free" was the compromise solution for this. Google's incentives actually run both ways - if they couldn't use paywalls, most content sites would probably use AdSense or DoubleClick, both Google products. But it's unlikely that a site like The Economist or The New York Times could continue to produce quality articles off AdSense revenue alone.