Zone1 Posts with links to websites with paywalls - what good are they?

[Seymour Flops]

My pet peeve on this forum is to see a claim by a person I disagree with that has a link to back it up. I think 'can this be true? If so, I'm wrong. I better read about this, so I can get right.'

Then I click on the link and hit a paywall. No way to verify what the other poster claimed, and no way to point out a "small print" in the story that renders it meaningless. Confronted with this, one of three things can happen:

1) I can roll my eyes in disgust, having wasted my time.
2) I can look for the story in another news outlet. This is usually fruitless, which indicates to me that whatever great revelation the other poster is referrencing is opinion, not fact. But I can't prove that.
3) I can subscribe to the website for the chance to prove imurboy or whoever that they are wrong about what the article said.

None of those are of any benefit to the posters on here, and 3) turns USMB into advertisers for the pay websites.

Recommend banning links to pay sites. Just my opinion, though. Your word, your rules.

 

[pknopp]

Some of them you can get around but they aren't worth the effort. I do my best to post from sites all can access.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Refuting something and then posting your "point" behind a paywall is a sure sign of someone who is afraid they will get found out. I've noticed that while the title may support the point, the text of the links generally goes against it.

 

[The Duke]

My pet peeve on this forum is to see a claim by a person I disagree with that has a link to back it up. I think 'can this be true? If so, I'm wrong. I better read about this, so I can get right.'

Then I click on the link and hit a paywall. No way to verify what the other poster claimed, and no way to point out a "small print" in the story that renders it meaningless. Confronted with this, one of three things can happen:

1) I can roll my eyes in disgust, having wasted my time.
2) I can look for the story in another news outlet. This is usually fruitless, which indicates to me that whatever great revelation the other poster is referrencing is opinion, not fact. But I can't prove that.
3) I can subscribe to the website for the chance to prove imurboy or whoever that they are wrong about what the article said.

None of those are of any benefit to the posters on here, and 3) turns USMB into advertisers for the pay websites.

Recommend banning links to pay sites. Just my opinion, though. Your word, your rules.

Use this to get around paywalls:

archive.ph

You can either paste into the black if already archived, or into the red and you have to wait a while while it gathers the site for you.

There's another way to do this with "NoScript" and I saw yesterday somebody said it can be done with Adblock Plus, but Idk how.

 

[badger2]

My pet peeve on this forum is to see a claim by a person I disagree with that has a link to back it up. I think 'can this be true? If so, I'm wrong. I better read about this, so I can get right.'

Then I click on the link and hit a paywall. No way to verify what the other poster claimed, and no way to point out a "small print" in the story that renders it meaningless. Confronted with this, one of three things can happen:

1) I can roll my eyes in disgust, having wasted my time.
2) I can look for the story in another news outlet. This is usually fruitless, which indicates to me that whatever great revelation the other poster is referrencing is opinion, not fact. But I can't prove that.
3) I can subscribe to the website for the chance to prove imurboy or whoever that they are wrong about what the article said.

None of those are of any benefit to the posters on here, and 3) turns USMB into advertisers for the pay websites.

Recommend banning links to pay sites. Just my opinion, though. Your word, your rules.

Paywalls = identity walls. Nazi surveillance, if not for identity, for location.

 

[toobfreak]

Recommend banning links to pay sites. Just my opinion, though. Your word, your rules.

I hear ya. I run into this all the time. The only problem is what you and the OP see may be different depending on browsers and web activity!

 

[candycorn]

My pet peeve on this forum is to see a claim by a person I disagree with that has a link to back it up. I think 'can this be true? If so, I'm wrong. I better read about this, so I can get right.'

Then I click on the link and hit a paywall. No way to verify what the other poster claimed, and no way to point out a "small print" in the story that renders it meaningless. Confronted with this, one of three things can happen:

1) I can roll my eyes in disgust, having wasted my time.
2) I can look for the story in another news outlet. This is usually fruitless, which indicates to me that whatever great revelation the other poster is referrencing is opinion, not fact. But I can't prove that.
3) I can subscribe to the website for the chance to prove imurboy or whoever that they are wrong about what the article said.

None of those are of any benefit to the posters on here, and 3) turns USMB into advertisers for the pay websites.

Recommend banning links to pay sites. Just my opinion, though. Your word, your rules.

Reputable websites can charge for their content. They are trusted. NPR doesn't because it's a .org and AP doesn't because they see their mission as a public service.

Right wing kook sites? Not so much.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Reputable websites can charge for their content. They are trusted. NPR doesn't because it's a .org and AP doesn't because they see their mission as a public service.

Right wing kook sites? Not so much.

If you find a story on a pay website, and it has any validity, it will be on plenty of non-pay websites.

Pretending you provided a link to back up your claim, when the link isn't accessible means it is likely a false claim, or more likely a claim based on a headline only that is not supported by the story.

 

[petro]

If it's a paywall, not worth my time. Any link I post can be viewed by all.

 

[candycorn]

If you find a story on a pay website, and it has any validity, it will be on plenty of non-pay websites.

Usually true.

Pretending you provided a link to back up your claim, when the link isn't accessible means it is likely a false claim, or more likely a claim based on a headline only that is not supported by the story.

Pretending gatewaypundshit is credible is hilarious.

 

[Delldude]

Refuting something and then posting your "point" behind a paywall is a sure sign of someone who is afraid they will get found out. I've noticed that while the title may support the point, the text of the links generally goes against it.

I don't know about that. Sometimes you can access a story on a web site that covered the paywall for their site, then try and post it, it goes to a paywall. It's happened to me.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Usually true.

Pretending gatewaypundshit is credible is hilarious.

I mentioned gatewaypundit?

 

[candycorn]

I mentioned gatewaypundit?

No sir.

 

[Delldude]

Pretending gatewaypundshit is credible is hilarious.

I don't care if its Mad magazine, if they quote the sources for the story to back up their view, but you people only attack without reading.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I don't care if its Mad magazine, if they quote the sources for the story to back up their view, but you people only attack without reading.

Just another day in the neighborhood...

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Do this:

Did you know about this Internet trick?

Are you tired of websites forcing you to log in? Try this trick for paywalls!#technology #internet #tech

m.youtube.com

 

[Captain Caveman]

My pet peeve on this forum is to see a claim by a person I disagree with that has a link to back it up. I think 'can this be true? If so, I'm wrong. I better read about this, so I can get right.'

Then I click on the link and hit a paywall. No way to verify what the other poster claimed, and no way to point out a "small print" in the story that renders it meaningless. Confronted with this, one of three things can happen:

1) I can roll my eyes in disgust, having wasted my time.
2) I can look for the story in another news outlet. This is usually fruitless, which indicates to me that whatever great revelation the other poster is referrencing is opinion, not fact. But I can't prove that.
3) I can subscribe to the website for the chance to prove imurboy or whoever that they are wrong about what the article said.

None of those are of any benefit to the posters on here, and 3) turns USMB into advertisers for the pay websites.

Recommend banning links to pay sites. Just my opinion, though. Your word, your rules.

They're as much use as tits on a fish

 

[whitehall]

The USMB is a discussion forum but certain ignorant members of society prefer to let others do their discussing. They sit back like they used to do in their highest education level that might reach the 12th grade and scroll through their liberal web sites until they find a provocative subject that most of the time they have little understanding or the ability to discuss it.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

My pet peeve on this forum is to see a claim by a person I disagree with that has a link to back it up. I think 'can this be true? If so, I'm wrong. I better read about this, so I can get right.'

Then I click on the link and hit a paywall. No way to verify what the other poster claimed, and no way to point out a "small print" in the story that renders it meaningless. Confronted with this, one of three things can happen:

1) I can roll my eyes in disgust, having wasted my time.
2) I can look for the story in another news outlet. This is usually fruitless, which indicates to me that whatever great revelation the other poster is referrencing is opinion, not fact. But I can't prove that.
3) I can subscribe to the website for the chance to prove imurboy or whoever that they are wrong about what the article said.

None of those are of any benefit to the posters on here, and 3) turns USMB into advertisers for the pay websites.

Recommend banning links to pay sites. Just my opinion, though. Your word, your rules.

I agree. As most impactful news is carried by multiple outlets, one can often find a work-around, if it's worth it. One trick is to access news aggregates like MSN--they often have the MSM article without the paywall.

I almost always avoid linking to a paywall..and if I have to, I try to alert the reader. I'm not in favor of a ban, but don't be surprised if members bash your posts and move on--when you use a paywall link.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

The USMB is a discussion forum but certain ignorant members of society prefer to let others do their discussing. They sit back like they used to do in their highest education level that might reach the 12th grade and scroll through their liberal web sites until they find a provocative subject that most of the time they have little understanding or the ability to discuss it.

LOL! You were doing great until ya just had to add "liberal web sites". There is a huge block of posters here on the right that continuously link to whackadoo Right-wing web sites and post about subjects that they are uninformed or misinformed on. They also scroll through their go-to purveyors of affirmation and post.

IMO, this is NOT a righty/lefty issue..but an example of partisan behavior that cuts across the ideological divide.