Anonymous #1 10w

So it’s by design lmao?

3

Anonymous OP 10w

I understand needing to pay people but companies that have never been behind a paywall (cable news companies) are now forcing people to buy subscriptions to both their news services and their cable services

5

Anonymous OP 10w

Id assume it depends case by case. But often times this has to do with the traditional methods of income (cable and paper news) being no longer viable. I don’t pay for news services but tbh I’d prefer a paywall over sponsored articles, those are really bad.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

I see what you’re saying but these are companies that initially offered information as a right not as a service, now it’s service not a right

1

Anonymous OP 10w

I mean you never had a “right” to cable TV or the news channels on it. That was always paywalled. As #1 pointed out, their two primary sources of revenue (newspapers and cable TV) have declined rapidly. So yeah they have to replace that with something to keep producing content

4

Anonymous OP 10w

And like the only reason you could ever access articles for free online was because because there was ads on them, it still wasn’t like they were giving away news for free

1

Anonymous OP 10w

A company is a company and is intended to make a profit. It cannot be sustained otherwise. If it’s a non-profit foundation or government service like PBS, that’s different.

1