Basically, if all I can read is a headline how can I consider it informative? A news headline has as much evidence as your average Tweet, and can be deeply incorrect through the use of clickbait.

I do use methods to get around paywalls, but knowing that some/most people won’t, it seems counter-informative to solely use the clickbait headline to keep people informed.

    • Just_Pizza_Crust@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I agree with that, but am also limited to being able to afford just a few news subscriptions. Assuming I’m not the exception, it just seems to be counterproductive towards generating discussion in a community for discussing news.

      People who can only view a clickbait headline also end up not knowing the context of what others are discussing that may have paid for the subscription, and could further be counterproductive in generating meaningful discussion.

      • madeinthebackseat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        Maybe the community should tag paywalled articles, such that those posts can be wholly filtered by users not wanting to see them?

  • chirospasm@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    This is an interesting take. What about a summary bot that can post article contents, cleaned up, from behind the wall?

    Or: a bot that would post a web archive link, instead, to preserve privacy? Some instances take a similar approach to YouTube links by having a bot post Piped links.

  • yamanii@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    To be fair, I don’t actually know if the article has a paywall or not anymore since I started using Bypass Paywalls on Firefox.

  • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.orgM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s really not hard to get around them, and paywalls differ geographically.

    Using archive / bypass links as the post links make things worse: they allow shitty tabloid headlines to carry the same weight as those from legitimate sources by obfuscating the source. As most people only read the headline, it should be obvious why that’s worse.

    • Just_Pizza_Crust@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I hadn’t considered the second part, but couldn’t bundling the source with the bypass solve that issue?

      Being that news communities are there to facilitate discussion, it seems counterproductive to keep people from viewing the article in question. If someone just wanted to read the headlines and not have any discussion, an RSS feed would probably be better.

      • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.orgM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        8 months ago

        I always prefer the archive link in the post body. That way you have the benefit of it if you need it, and the source for the headline is prominently displayed close by.