Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
It doesn't. Doesn't mean anyone has to allow anything besides fox news either.
Just pointing out that journalism costs money and certain stories are very expensive to research and cover. As many things in life, you get what you pay for.
Well a majority of the ones I see seem to rather be lazy garbage editorializing a single quote or study that would be more informative presented by itself.
What I want is to talk about things with people who have also read the relevant context, news site paywall subscriptions prevent that even if you pay because everybody else will have only read the headline. Or they would, if they weren't so easy to pirate.
You can apply the same for movies, games, theater plays, theme parks, travel... so you just don't pay for anything just because you want to talk to someone about it?
If my primary interest in something is talking to people about it, then gatekeeping destroys its value to me. If my interest in a game is its multiplayer, but nobody plays it anymore, then yeah not only would I not pay for it I also would not spend the harddrive space to install it even if it were free.
Imagine you're organizing a book club. Wouldn't it make sense to require that prospective books to read are available through the library system? The nature of a book club is that you'll have to read things you might not be interested in on your own, but it's worth the effort because of the opportunity to share and gain perspectives of the other people there. Reading by itself is already an investment of time and effort, getting people to organize enough to have a discussion about something is already difficult, so the endeavor has a clear interest in avoiding the presence of an additional, financial, barrier to a successful discourse.
"You get what you pay for" doesn't make sense here. The paywall makes it worthless for the given purpose whether or not you pay, which is why it would make sense for people administering link aggregator/discussion sites like this one to ban paywalled links.
So we shouldn't have communities around videogames (or board games), professional sports, traveling, food, clothes, most hobbies, or anything else, because it costs money? Even in a bookbclub, the library won't have 15 copies of the same book, some people will have to buy it, unless your book club comprises 2 people.
You get what you pay for is exactly right.
IME this is not so much a problem because people are using ebooks and you can digitally check out books from other libraries than the one closest to you. If there is a lack of copies, that could be grounds for going with a different book.
This is not at all what I'm saying. Does wanting to ban paywall links equate to wanting journalism to die? No, but it makes sense to do, and if it making sense to do conflicts with the business model, that's not a moral problem because people aren't obligated to help companies make their (imo stupid and harmful in this case) decisions work out for them.
So it makes sense to ban discussing games that are not open source, discussing movies not in the public domain and sports that charge for tickets?
A better analogy would be a ban on posts that are just a link to a Steam page or a ticket sale page. In which case, yeah, makes sense, that's spam.
That doesn't have anything to do with the discussion. Either you want to ban paid content or you don't.