Ethics of Bypassing Paywalls on News

[Estrid]

Just for the record, I have absolutely no qualms with bypassing paywalls. (And I don't think that God does either) I'm against anything that serves to proclaim that one person is entitled to something that another person isn't. From my perspective, the paywall is at least as immoral as bypassing it is. So if you can ethically withhold it from me, I can just as ethically take it from you.

You do understand " theft of service", right?

You are not " entitled " to haircut, car repair, legal
representation, or a host of other things for which you do not compensate the provider.

Theft of service on the sly ...well, I won't say it.

Side issue, a Jesuit here in HK explained all the ten
commandments after i asked him about " ...shalt not kill"


The one about " lords name in vain", wish I could remember the exact words, but basically, it was like "don't you dare use god's name justify yourself".

I'm no Christian, but it seemed to make sense.

 

[Estrid]

Ok, skeptic. Let me believe in Jesus, and the fact that He convicted me on April 18th through the lovely folks on this forum, to no longer be a thief of news.

I offered no interference in your belief .
Accusing me of it and calling names is not called for.
Please do not adress me again.

 

[partinobodycular]

You do understand " theft of service", right?

I understand it perfectly well. It's a very simple legal concept. Just not a moral one. Which is in fact one of the problems that I have with the Ten Commandments... it's a list of civil laws... not the basis for a moral code. A moral code would be "Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God"... that's a moral code... one which every set of civil laws strives for, but can never achieve.

You are not " entitled " to haircut, car repair, legal
representation, or a host of other things for which you do not compensate the provider.

It's not about being entitled, it's about loving thy neighbor. It's about doing the right thing. Not according to what the law says, but according to what love thy neighbor says.

If you had need of them, and I had the ability to provide you with them, then what difference should it make whether you have the ability to pay? What nobler thing could I possibly do with the gifts that I've been given, but to give them to someone else. Believing that just as I have faith enough to give to you, someone else will have compassion enough to give to me. And if they don't, then so be it... all that I've lost out on is money.

For all of man's civil laws there's one law that stands above them all... love thy neighbor. So if I see a sign that says whites only, or paying customers only, you can bet... I'm gonna ignore it.

 

[Estrid]

I understand it perfectly well. It's a very simple legal concept. Just not a moral one. Which is in fact one of the problems that I have with the Ten Commandments... it's a list of civil laws... not the basis for a moral code. A moral code would be "Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God"... that's a moral code... one which every set of civil laws strives for, but can never achieve.



It's not about being entitled, it's about loving thy neighbor. It's about doing the right thing. Not according to what the law says, but according to what love thy neighbor says.

If you had need of them, and I had the ability to provide you with them, then what difference should it make whether you have the ability to pay? What nobler thing could I possibly do with the gifts that I've been given, but to give them to someone else. Believing that just as I have faith enough to give to you, someone else will have compassion enough to give to me. And if they don't, then so be it... all that I've lost out on is money.

For all of man's civil laws there's one law that stands above them all... love thy neighbor. So if I see a sign that says whites only, or paying customers only, you can bet... I'm gonna ignore it.

Of course I'm not christian so don't accept
any Authority to the 10 C.

We do though have moral / ethical traditions
that often c,osely correspond.

As for obeying laws just because- depends.

I understand duty of civil disobedience.
I got my head cracked and time in jail for
expressing my opinion.

I think the topic is of private enterprise
offering a service that they cannot offer unless
it's profitable. To me it's unethical to take a free
ride and let others do the work.

 

[partinobodycular]

Of course I'm not christian so don't accept
any Authority to the 10 C.

Me neither, and I'm a closet Christian, then again I never have been one to put any stock in titles.

We do though have moral / ethical traditions
that often c,osely correspond.

Indeed we do, and it's only old age that has led me to question just how ethical/moral those traditions really are.

I think the topic is of private enterprise
offering a service that they cannot offer unless
it's profitable. To me it's unethical to take a free
ride and let others do the work.

And therein lies the problem. We've created a system that forces people to do things for profit. It's a system that's allowed some people to become obscenely rich, while leaving other people to be inordinately poor. Now you can justify this by claiming that for the most part people get what they deserve. But here's the thing about the edict to "do justly, and love mercy"... it's not so much concerned about what people deserve, it's concerned about what I as a compassionate individual am willing to give them in spite of what they deserve.

You don't like people taking a free ride and I can totally understand that... but sometimes our system is designed to let some people take a 'free ride' on the backs of the less fortunate... often without our even recognizing it. But we really should stop for a second and see what we're actually doing. There are things that we as a society should be able to provide for even the least of us. Not because all men are created equal, but because the best of them are created compassionate. We may not be able to make life fair... but we can at least try to make it fairer.

So I understand that free rides are unethical, and that people are simply working within the system we have, but when it's the system itself that's the problem don't be surprised if people abuse it.

When people are told that there are things that they cannot have, don't be surprised if they simply take them... not because they're less ethical than you, but because they get tired of getting treated less fairly than you.

"Do justly, and love mercy"... easy words to proclaim... but harder to live by.

So... simple question, if you had a choice, do you think that it would be better if pay news sites were available for free?

 

[Estrid]

Me neither, and I'm a closet Christian, then again I never have been one to put any stock in titles.



Indeed we do, and it's only old age that has led me to question just how ethical/moral those traditions really are.



And therein lies the problem. We've created a system that forces people to do things for profit. It's a system that's allowed some people to become obscenely rich, while leaving other people to be inordinately poor. Now you can justify this by claiming that for the most part people get what they deserve. But here's the thing about the edict to "do justly, and love mercy"... it's not so much concerned about what people deserve, it's concerned about what I as a compassionate individual am willing to give them in spite of what they deserve.

You don't like people taking a free ride and I can totally understand that... but sometimes our system is designed to let some people take a 'free ride' on the backs of the less fortunate... often without our even recognizing it. But we really should stop for a second and see what we're actually doing. There are things that we as a society should be able to provide for even the least of us. Not because all men are created equal, but because the best of them are created compassionate. We may not be able to make life fair... but we can at least try to make it fairer.

So I understand that free rides are unethical, and that people are simply working within the system we have, but when it's the system itself that's the problem don't be surprised if people abuse it.

When people are told that there are things that they cannot have, don't be surprised if they simply take them... not because they're less ethical than you, but because they get tired of getting treated less fairly than you.

"Do justly, and love mercy"... easy words to proclaim... but harder to live by.

So... simple question, if you had a choice, do you think that it would be better if pay news sites were available for free?

I live in Hong Kong, where we kinda understand
capitalism.

Let me answer your q within other q.

Do you think all services should be free?

To answer your q directly, no. It makes no sense,
Its not pay if it's free.

And free is impossible. Someone has to pay.

If I could cheat and avoid paying I would not.
It's unethical.

 

[partinobodycular]

Do you think all services should be free?

This is a complex question. In an ideal world, not only services, but goods would be free as well. Just my opinion, but I think that humanity is perfectly capable of creating such a world. Maybe not today... but not all that far from today.

Hopefully you're familiar with the quote from the U.S Declaration of Independence, which declares: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

To me, anything that serves to fulfill these rights should be equally available to everyone, regardless of their economic or social standing. But what exactly is "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"? From my perspective they're the things that every parent desires for their children... that they be healthy, that they have the opportunity to pursue an education, and that they grow up believing that their life has a purpose, and that they have the freedom to pursue that purpose. To paraphrase Maya Angelou, "None of us are free, until all of us are free".

It should be humanity's goal to ensure these rights for everyone. As such, placing the news behind a pay wall isn't conducive to those rights, because it denies to some, that which should be available to everyone... the wisdom of those who would desire to share it.

This isn't to say that the author isn't worthy of their compensation... because of course they are... it's to say that we as a society are still discriminating against those less fortunate than ourselves. Only this time it's under the 'ethical' guise of capitalism... that people should only receive that which they have the capacity to pay for... as if for some reason they're not worthy of anything more.

But we as intelligent and compassionate beings should be able to do better. We should be able to compensate a person for their efforts, while at the same time making the fruits of those efforts available to everyone. Some may believe this to be naive and wishful thinking, and I would agree... but I also believe that it's the right thing to do. So if I have to be an outlier, then I'll be an outlier. It won't be the first time.

And free is impossible. Someone has to pay.

Sometimes "We the people" have to shoulder the burden of the few, in order to ensure the rights of the many.

If I could cheat and avoid paying I would not.
It's unethical.

I'm hoping that that same ethical standard will lead you to understand what Maya Angelou was saying... that even if you have the means, you're not truly ethically exonerated until everyone has the means.