back
1 comments
You might want to reconsider posting comments like that. You may think you're making a principled stand against the evils of paywalls (aside: how do you expect online publications to stay in business?) but in fact all you're doing is advertising the fact that you're either too lazy or too stupid to take the trivial steps required to get around one.
"too lazy or too stupid to take the trivial steps required to get around one"

Or maybe he just doesn't want to? You know, on principle? Even skirting the paywall, you're boosting the WSJ's viewership stats which in turn, helps them sell more advertising/contributes to their "value".

> you're boosting the WSJ's viewership stats

That would be the case whether or not they had a paywall.

Which is my point... maybe the parent commenter does not want to do this - instead of being either lazy or stupid as suggested.
No, because he specifically said he was opting out because of the paywall, not because it was the WSJ.
I appreciated the comment because I do not want to bother navigating to a paywall'd page. And I'd be happy if these publications didn't stay in business.
What do you mean by "these publications"? Do you want any on-line publications to stay in business, and if so, how do you expect them to support themselves?
Publications that use "pay-wall" websites. It's antagonistic to the type of web I want to support.

I eagerly contribute to online publications that use other types of business-models: wikipedia, democracynow, TVO, individuals with high-quality blogs, etc.

Paying a for-profit company to do work is not a moral good, it's not a charity. If they can't stay in business, that's hardly my problem. If they want to be a non-profit or charity, then I'd be more inclined to contribute, and that structure might help them produce a higher-quality work anyway.