I’ve been donating to the news site Vox for a while now, and all their content has so far been free. I felt kinda bad about blocking the ads on their site and fast-forwarding through all the ad breaks in their podcasts. So in the spirit of actually supporting something I like, I started chipping in a few bucks a month.

But recently, they’ve started putting some of their articles behind a paywall. Since I was already donating, I automatically have access. But for some reason, I feel like I don’t wanna pay anymore. It’s not like it costs me more, but there’s just something about dontating to a free site vs paying for exclusive content that doesn’t feel the same. Maybe cuz I’m not a fan of paywalls in general, so I don’t want to support companies that implement them.

Does that make sense? What would you do? And if you’re not a fan of Vox, maybe think of some other free service/content, like videos from a streamer or a software project or something.

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yes. By replacing your voluntary charity with a payment scheme, they’ve deprived you of the value of giving.

    They changed the deal. It’s perfectly rational to want to stop consuming their content.

    Whether you do is up to you, but you’re not crazy or anything for feeling deprived.

  • LittleTarsier@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Journalism isn’t free. For a different type of service, I would reconsider if I wanted to continue supporting them. But good journalism is disappearing, so I think if you’re in a position to help keep it going, you should.

  • sbv@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 months ago

    The industries supporting journalism have basically collapsed over the past few decades. If you have the means to support decent research and writing, please do so.

  • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    But recently, they’ve started putting some of their articles behind a paywall. Since I was already donating, I automatically have access.

    In that case I don’t see a problem. In a lot of ways your donation became a subscription, but then again, news cost money to make. This was true during the print days, and is no less true during the digital age.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Justifying prices is an oxymoron.

      Either there’s a case for giving them money, or the basis of payment is the value being obtained in the article. Arguing for a price based on the costs behind it mixes the two frames and creates confusion.

      It’s a law of demeter violation.

      Once the paywall goes up, OP’s healthiest decision-making frame is “is consuming this content worth $X to me or not?”. If they wanted OP to worry about how much it costs to make news, they should have left it voluntary.

      • Nath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 months ago

        I see OPs point. I donate to Wikipedia, because I love what they do and want to support them. If they decided to put up pay walls, my personal feelings on their model would alter. Even if I got access as a doner.

        I would no longer be inclined to donate, because I would no longer believe in what they do.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s like how the panhandlers started blocking my way and requiring a toll payment to get to the subway.

      Just like that.

      It’s like my donation became a subscription.

      • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        No but you bring up a good example: You don’t get your sub for donating money to Subway. You have to pay them to get it. But in return, it provides a - questionable, some would say - service to you by providing you with food.

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

          Subway never gave subs for free. This is a bad faith argument.

          In order for it to work Sunday would have had to offer subs to anyone for free. You donate, because you like what they are doing. They become a paid service, your donation no longer supports the ability for people to eat for free.

          This is an entirely different scenario and is not a good rebuttal

  • Elextra@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I do not think I blame any services or sites for paywalls especially if its part of their financial model to continue operations and providing services.

    There are many free services I have the privilege of being able to pay for to support: Proton, StoryGraph, Wikipedia. I used to donate to Pocket but no longer. I want these services to continue and am privileged enough to be able to donate

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      I want these services to continue and am privileged enough to be able to donate

      I think this is the best model from sociatsl perspective. I like service that are available to everyone for free at least to some degree.

      I pay for some things as an adult wage slave, I can do it and I do it with idea that it is my turn to pay.

      When I was young I couldn’t and I didn’t but somebody else paid or Foss chads just did for the people.

      I used to pay for content too but media industry lost their fucking minds so I am radicalized now…

  • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I would only consider donating in the first place if it were not only free to access, but also licensed under a free license. I have donated to freely licensed projects before, but not to merely freely accessible websites.

  • ClassifiedPancake@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m annoyed by paywalls but I understand and accept them. I never view my payment as a donation, it’s just a way to get access to content. What troubles me is when important information is hidden to the public that might guide you in your understanding of the world and therefore (political) decision making.

  • u/lukmly013 💾 (lemmy.sdf.org)@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I would stop. At that point it’s not really a donation, but a payment. I don’t know how much of that donation to consider a “payment”.

    Similarly I didn’t get the Tor Project stickers. I don’t know how much the stickers, envelope and postage cost them, thus I couldn’t determine the amount that is “donation”. As such, I opted not to take them. Just the same with Fediverse Canvas 2024 stickers. Some amount of that has went for Canvas development, but how much I don’t know. Once again I opted for donation only.
    I’d like them in both cases. Perhaps $3 (excl. shipping) per sticker is still OK to consider a purchase, but $25 for a few stickers, meh.

    Anyway, my point is, if for the donation I am provided exclusive products or services and I either don’t know their cost (to subtract from donation amount) or don’t have the choice to opt out from being provided the services/products, I won’t donate at all.

    But even outside of that, it wouldn’t pass. For me, one requirement for donating is that whatever group I am donating to provides everyone the same service no matter if you pay them or not. Otherwise I can’t really consider it a donation, and I don’t have the money to pay.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I feel the same way you do and I think you articulated this difficult concept pretty well.

      How would you feel about a third, hybrid category called something like an “inflated price” or whatever, that’s understood to be a price above market value?

  • Zerlyna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 months ago

    I have mixed feelings. “ Back in my day,”…. Before the internet (cough cough) the only free news was the TV. We paid a quarter each day for the newspaper, or $3-4 for a magazine. I’m sure spent $50 a month across a variety of sources. And that was in the 90’s. I feel guilty pasting link after link into archive myself because of the paywalls.

  • Jarix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I grew up on an internet that was made by and for people who wanted you to visit their site.

    If you offer something for free, become popular, then turn it into a paid service, I will no longer use it.

    If i had enough money that i didn’t notice everything that is behind a pay wall would care a lot less. But I’ve never been in that position from the day i was born and it looks like ill die without ever knowing what that is like so I’m certainly biased.

    That being said i think paywalls can be redone so that everyone wins.

    If you have a paywall that only blocks new content until x minutes/hours/days etc have elapsed then I think that’s a good way to monetize something when costs endanger the existence of the thing

  • howrar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    Ask yourself why you’re donating in the first place. Is it so that good journalism can continue to exist regardless of who gets to see it? Is it to give everyone access to good journalism regardless of their ability to pay? Is it so that the journalists can continue producing content for you to consume yourself? Maybe it’s something else?

    If the company is no longer providing what you expect from them, then that’s a good reason to stop donating.

  • spittingimage@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    If they’re charging for access, they’re now a business. I’d consider if I want to be a customer and if not, no further donations.

  • orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    I think the details matter a lot. If I’m an active contributor to a site and I get a bait and switch, then I’m probably going to leave the site permanently. I try to keep track of what’s happening to make that less likely.

    If you’re setting up a service and you realize it doesn’t scale up well, I think you should try to state your roadmap on your site somewhere, so the users can expect changes that might happen. If people go in expecting that you might need to monetize in certain ways, they won’t be disappointed when you do. Or rather, they might be slightly disappointed but they’ll understand.