
If you have something important to say, don't say it in a paywalled publication - hhs
https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1172434260176732161
======
ThinkBeat
Journalism costs money and I am willing to, and do pay for it. Ivestigative
journalism costs even more. Yet it is critical for the existence of a
democracy.

"First, if you want reliable information – pay good money for it. If you get
your news for free, you might well be the product. Suppose a shady billionaire
offered you the following deal: ‘I will pay you $30 a month, and in exchange,
you will allow me to brainwash you for an hour every day, installing in your
mind whichever political and commercial biases I want.’ Would you take the
deal? Few sane people would. So the shady billionaire offers a slightly
different deal: ‘You will allow me to brainwash you for one hour every day,
and in exchange, I will not charge you anything for this service.’ Now the
deal suddenly sounds tempting to hundreds of millions of people. Don’t follow
their example."

21 Lessons for the 21st Century by Yuval Noah Harari

In my opinion, the business press WSJ, and Finacial Times (both expensive) are
among the best places for news. Both try hard to be accurate. A lot of rich
people read them and make decisions because of information. If it is not
accurate that is a real problem. (I am here excluding the editorial pages of
the WSJ which exists on an entirely different planet).

It also has the added benefit for me of much less nonsense. Sports, celebrity
gossip, and all the fluff that takes up way to much space in many news
publications.

~~~
tylerl
I have a response to this comment which represents the result of 16 months of
dedicated research, and will have a positive effect on both the discussion and
also the industry as a whole, provided my content gets the attention that it
deserves.

It'll cost you $15 to read it though. Research like this is expensive, and
since you're the party who will benefit, you have a duty to pay me.

If you refuse to pay me to read what I have to say, it means you hate the
truth.

~~~
prepend
This is the problem with news and I don’t know the solution. It’s hard to
trust a company that is spending lots of effort explaining how valuable and
worthwhile they are.

Many of these arguments boils down to “pay me or lose me.” While it’s true
that good journalism costs money that doesn’t mean we should pay for mediocre
and bad journalism. And it’s pretty hard for me to tell good from bad.

This reminds me of site that when you fire visit them put up a window that
asks you to subscribe. I don’t know if I want to subscribe so how would I be
able to choose. But if a site relies on people subscribing without good
judgment then that’s probably a sign that they don’t have a good feedback loop
for value.

Even the nytimes asks me to subscribe just to read for free. I’m not willing
to do that to read the infrequent article from them and they are one of the
world’s best. I used to subscribe but it was a chore to read regularly because
of all the fluff.

Unless there is a micropayment tip jar, I’ll continue to read only the
journalism that is able to survive from non-targeted ads. Which, I think,
works out ok for me as I don’t regret very frequently choosing the “lose me”
option.

~~~
Fnoord
> Unless there is a micropayment tip jar

Blendle [1] tried this model. It did not work for them. They're now using an
all you can eat model.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blendle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blendle)

------
DannyB2
Advertising ruins every medium it ever touches.

Newspapers. Billboards. Magazines. Radio. TV. Cable TV. VHS / DVD. Usenet.
Email. The Web. Online news. Smart phones. Streaming video.

It is a watershed decision to have ads or a subscription model. Ads will doom
your platform / media. A subscription can create high quality content, if
there is market demand for your content. Do not do both subscription AND ads.
That devolves quickly.

Just IMO.

~~~
yoz-y
Podcasts run on advertising and there are many good quality ones.
Subscriptions are good if you have either massively popular content or
massively impactful and insightful content for professionals who can expense
it. I think in current day and age it is possible to start making the latter.
But you will not become popular without being free.

~~~
DannyB2
Advertising starts out okay. But the endpoint is all ads, no content. And the
content is very low quality.

An excellent ongoing example is Cable TV. Content is now about 50 % of the
time. When a long string of ads are completed, then characters and other bugs
and gizmos walk out onto the screen, on top of the content, obscuring the
content, sometimes even important plot elements.

Or remember how BYTE magazine gradually became pregnant with ads, then
eventually became what I would call the forerunner of Computer Shopper. All
ads, no content.

And the web. Sites now have more ads than content. Especially some "news"
sites. And the ads are obnoxious. Pop up, flashing, blinking, jumping,
scrolling, in your face, making the content impossible to read.

~~~
cameronbrown
But consumers now have the power to block ads, that's something we never
really had before (other than fast forwarding through them on TV). This
massively evens the power imbalance - if websites keep abusing their
customers, bye bye revenue.

We're slowly seeing that happen today.

------
pessimizer
The idea that somebody should pay to hear me say something I think is
important is weird, and the idea that if I have something I think everyone
should hear, I should ask them to pay to hear it is weird. I don't have a
problem if that simple statement ruins the business model of the 10,000 court
stenographers masquerading as journalists, but traditionally, journalism was
done by people trying to spread ideas: either the people who came up with
those ideas, or the wealthy sponsors of the people who came up with those
ideas.

Now, we almost exclusively hear from people being sponsored by the wealthy
while people independent of them are denigrated as an unprofessional fringe,
and we're expected to feel guilt if we don't pay for it.

I send money to the publications that investigate the things I want
investigated, who make the arguments that I already agree with, or who teach
me things that I want to know, or who just make me smile. I don't even read
half the publications I donate to; they're not for me, I already agree, and I
don't need to hear the arguments because I make the same arguments. Whereas
plenty of the publications I _do_ read I think the world would be better
without, and I not only don't want to donate to them, I wish I could somehow
take money away from them.

I don't care about their suffering. If they don't like it, they should either
find something else to do, or something important to say that people would
want to pay to _keep them saying_ NOT _to hear._ They're not the same thing.
And no amount of corporate hectoring done through employees is going to change
that.

NYT editorial columnists should be paying us.

------
darepublic
I find it funny that when I try to look at the replies I get a membership wall
off. No I don't want to sign up for some new thing just to read some glib
self-righteous twitter comments

~~~
farisjarrah
I don't know if the author of the tweet actually thought through the
implications of what they tweeted. They have yet to provide a sensible
response to things like book authorship and journalism. Does anyone really
think someone like Donald Knuth shouldn't be paid for the work he's done on
the Art of Computer Programming?

~~~
CDSlice
Well, based off of some of my friends history of pirating books they think are
too expensive, yes.

------
smacktoward
Tech's position on the issue of how to fund journalism online is fundamentally
incoherent.

After 20 years of experiments, there are only two models that have been
consistently proven to work: restricting access to paying customers only
(a.k.a. paywalling), and open access combined with heavy, invasive advertising
(both the traditional kind, and more insidious kinds like clickbait headlines
and sponsored content). That's it. Those are the only models anyone's found
that don't lead to bankruptcy.

The problem is that tech insists that _both_ these models are morally
unacceptable. Put up a paywall, and you'll get a parade of tech influencers
denouncing you as a greedy elitist. _Don 't_ put up a paywall, and you'll get
the same parade of tech influencers denouncing you as a purveyor of spyware
and clickbait.

OK, fine. So what then does tech propose these publications _do_ , exactly?
Are they supposed to just lay down and die? Because unless someone can come up
with a third model that actually works, that's the only option left after you
rule out every other option that works.

You can see this incoherence play out in every HN comment thread about
journalism. The _New York Times_ consistently produces excellent journalism;
but they keep that journalism behind a paywall, so they are Evil. _Buzzfeed_
doesn't have a paywall, but it produces lots of clickbait and sponsored
content[1], so they are Evil too.

The only publications that aren't Evil, it turns out, are the ones that are
going out of business.

[1] Although they also produce an increasing amount of very good journalism
these days alongside it. Which, of course, the clickbait and sponsored content
pay for.

~~~
seem_2211
Love to see software engineers who make $100k plus decide that other people
should work for free.

~~~
rpmisms
One of my favorite parts of HN is getting to laugh at folks in the Silicon
Bubble. The real world is out here, and no, UBI is going to be spent on weed.
All of it.

~~~
seem_2211
Or rent... (sadly)

------
tryitnow
I think there's an important point here, but twitter is a terrible medium for
making that point.

Maybe if you have something important to say, don't say it on twitter.

~~~
retsibsi
Twitter is basically an excuse to make pithy, sweeping pronouncements rather
than nuanced or detailed arguments. An essay on this topic might be
interesting and useful, but as a 16-word tweet it's just empty.

"Don't publish important things behind paywalls" is a very easy moral
principle for a rich person to adopt. That doesn't mean it's false -- but to
make the point convincingly, one would have to take the perspective of people
who have strong reasons to publish behind paywalls in the first place, and
explain why they can and should resist these pressures.

------
ken
I assume this is just a Tweet with the title as content, but all I see on my
phone is a Twitter logo. I guess their JavaScript fest doesn’t always work.

Don’t stop there. When you have something important to say on the web, it’s
wrong to use anything other than a plain web page. (CMV.)

------
chooseaname
Is it? I get the idealistic point of view here. You certainly don't want to
keep important news from people who can't pay. But I'm not convinced this
should be the rule.

~~~
Kalium
Agreed. Important can mean a great many diverse things. If what you have to
say is important, but your audience is small and the best way to reach them is
a paywalled publication, then this may be the best way to reach them

------
luckyorlame
there is nothing wrong with paying for information. there is nothing wrong
with paying for the requests of someone else's labors / effort.

------
disgruntledphd2
I completely disagree with this statement.

I mean, I get where he's coming from (reach is reduced by imposing barriers to
the article).

But on the other hand, news costs money. You can argue about how much it
should cost, but journalism isn't free. Personally, I pay for 4-5 newspapers
(which is too much), but after the sh*tstorm of the past three years (Brexit,
elections etc), I felt that it was worth the money.

It's also a little ironic for someone as rich as Paul Graham to be arguing
against paywalls (like he could pay for every news-subscription and never
notice the cost).

In summation, Carthego delenda est! (or news is worth paying for, at least).

~~~
DannyB2
The problem with (some) paywalls is that they also advertise.

Either advertise and make it free, or have a paywall subscription model.

I get it that news isn't free. What is strange about the struggle is that in
the 21st century a big news organization can have a bigger subscriber base
than ever before. So why don't they? What is broken?

~~~
TallGuyShort
What's broken is what you said in your first statement: even if I pay, they
tend to also advertise. I also used to pay for a number of local / regional
newspapers, but me paying them didn't get me quality journalism in a single
transaction, it just got me better access to click-bait a lot of the time, and
I got to feel good that maybe I was kinda supporting good press. (I also had a
big problem with the fact that despite only wanting a digital subscription, I
still got paper copies at my house, but because I wasn't _supposed_ to, I had
no way to stop it when I left town and I was stuck with a dozen papers on my
driveway when I returned - nice and safe for me. I had to resort to borderline
illegal harassing behavior to get them to stop.)

There are high quality publications that I think do consistently do the
original research and due diligence behind their reporting, but they're mostly
just not of interest to me anymore because they're national. I'm overloaded
with political stuff in my face from other sources anyway - I'm happier just
not reading good commentary on it in my spare time. I find BBC is a good
source of world news, but they never ask me for money..

~~~
smacktoward
_> I find BBC is a good source of world news, but they never ask me for
money.._

Because they get their funding by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, who
quite generously allow the rest of us to benefit from the product they paid
for.

But if we're advocating state-sponsored media, remember that in that field the
BBC's commitment to real journalism makes it kind of an outlier. Most state-
sponsored media outlets are just propaganda mills for the regime that sponsors
them.

------
seem_2211
Advertising being bad as a YC take is the most hilariously out of touch thing
possible. How many people commenting on this thread work at Google or
Facebook, which are the biggest ad machines this planet has ever seen.

------
saagarjha
I’m curious if Paul is referring to online news, academic publications, or
both.

~~~
username90
Do you think that news is important? Then he is referring to news.

Do you think academic publications are important? Then he is referring to
academic publications.

Of course most news and most academic publications are not important so are
not covered, please monetize them as much as you want. But the important stuff
should be open. I think that is his argument.

Example: Someone writes a very good article on climate change which could sway
many ignorant persons. If it was behind a paywall then you ensure that only
those who already believes in climate change will bother to pay for it and
read it making the entire article mostly worthless to the world.

------
deaps
I think something like the following makes a bit more sense:

"If you have information that you want as many people as possible to know,
it's a disservice to yourself to put it behind a paywall"

Of course, I don't think that _most_ people read into statements the same way
the 'ycombinator crowd' does. So maybe they read it that way anyway.

~~~
JohnFen
That was how I read it as well. It seems like a logical and self-evident
statement.

------
Myrmornis
Why does Paul Graham keep saying that the book "Hackers & Painters" is
available for free on his website? I don't seem to be able to find it and
neither do any of the other people who are discussing the issue with him.

[https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1172557323270840323](https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1172557323270840323)

There's this, but that's a very short book if that's it:
[http://paulgraham.com/hp.html](http://paulgraham.com/hp.html)

~~~
retsibsi
The book is an essay collection, so I think he's saying each essay from the
book is available on the 'essays' section of his website.

------
aphextim
R.I.P. Aaron Swartz

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz)

------
DoreenMichele
One of the problems with putting important information behind a paywall is
that it creates an informational divide between the Haves and Have Nots. This
deepens class friction and helps both further leave behind the lower classes
and also potentially foment bloody revolution because they aren't getting the
memo about important discoveries because they literally can't afford the memo,
so it worsens the differences between the mental models of the upper and lower
classes. This goes really bad places.

I don't know what the solution is, but I generally agree with the sentiment,
even though as a writer I'm caught in the crossfire here and can't pay my
bills because ads are basically dead (and morally/logistically problematic in
certain problem spaces) and trying to support writing via other avenues is
challenging at best. Most writing pays rather poorly. For every JK Rowling or
Stephen King there's an army of underpaid nobodies barely scraping by.

But I'm not willing to paywall my blogs. It wouldn't accomplish anything good
to deny access to poor people who can't afford to pay.

We genuinely need to find ways to fund good writing and pay for the costs
involved in disseminating information. Local papers are going out of business
left and right and it's a real problem.

But it's also a very real problem to create a system where only the people who
already have money are allowed to know our latest, greatest hits of
information. Among other things, it also means new ideas cannot be effectively
challenged by people from diverse backgrounds, which weakens the information
ecosystem.

~~~
seem_2211
I don't agree. Even the most expensive newspaper (probably the FT) can be
bought for $3.00 or so. That's hardly prohibitive.

Until very recently, being illiterate was common, so it's not as if there was
a paradise 150 years ago where everyone was an engaged citizen.

~~~
DoreenMichele
No, but my understanding is that when the Romans published the code of law
publicly somewhere such that anyone capable of reading was capable of knowing
their rights without taking the word of their lord and master for it, literacy
rates among the lower classes went up dramatically.

------
tptacek
"I get so much value from this, it's wrong that I have to pay for it."

------
HillaryBriss
it always cracks me up when I visit the website of a "very serious newspaper"
and see a critically important op-ed headline about "saving democracy" or
"defending life on planet earth" but cannot read the article because they
paywalled it. maybe their message isn't really that important?

------
bryanrasmussen
I guess I am one of those people who hope that if you really say something
important it actually will end up getting known whether you are paywalled or
not. I also must admit though that this is a feeling and probably countered by
statistical evidence.

------
raegis
The Wall Street Journal is mostly paywalled. However, their editorial to
support Brett Kavanaugh's nomination was deliberately not paywalled. All good
propagandists know this rule.

~~~
hhs
Also, the Economist and the Financial Times are heavily paywalled. Sometimes,
articles are not. I'm curious how rules work with respect to which pieces to
"give for free"?

------
ozymandias12
>"If you have something important to say, don't say it in a paywalled
publication, NO MATTER much they're paying you."

There. I've fixed that tweet for you.

------
Data_Junkie
Then Paul should do something about waaaaay to many links on Hacker News to
paywalls. It's killing this site.

------
vkou
I'm assuming that anybody who has ever written a book is in the wrong, then?
Because last I checked, books are paywalled...

------
crawfordcomeaux
Kill money through developing needs-based giving economies. Then this becomes
a non-issue because paywalls will be seen as quaint toys used by the people
who still enjoy playing with money, even though it's worthless.

~~~
cameronbrown
Every attempt to "kill money" has ended in bloodshed.

~~~
crawfordcomeaux
That simply means we've found ways that don't work and aren't peaceful. In
computer science, we call these anti-patterns.

~~~
cameronbrown
You're amusing basic human nature (competition, survival of the fittest,
nepotism, and yes, greed) can be overcome.

~~~
crawfordcomeaux
These things are cultural myths. Science doesn't back them up.

Some cultures practice these things, some don't. Also, I assume all cultures
can change.

~~~
cameronbrown
Then why do we see the same trends over and over in history? Just because
we're more technologically advanced today, I don't think we're any different
as humans. There's survival instinct in all of us and denying it is just
ignorant.

------
davidw
It'd be nice if editorials weren't paywalled.

------
m4r35n357
Fake news is never paywalled.

~~~
luckyorlame
Ha, that's fake news right there.

~~~
chc
Is it? I'm trying to think of actual fake news sites with a paywall and I'm
drawing a blank. They generally seem to want to cast as wide a net as possible
in hopes of catching some gullible rubes and selling them nutritional
supplements.

------
luckyorlame
Ha, Twitter is a paywall publication! You're privacy is the payment!!!

------
your-nanny
Only context this makes sense in is research paid for from public purse.

------
simplecomplex
Oh shut up Paul. Get over yourself.

Also, put your money where your mouth is and ban paywalled articles on HN.

