The Case for (or against) Open-Access Journalism (Paywalls Part II)

[AlexB23]

Hello guys and gals. Yesterday, a group of folks including @essentialsaltes , @JosephZ and others have enlightened me on the ethics of bypassing paywalls, a structure that news agencies use to pay their employees. I now understand that using software to bypass paywalls is unethical (both from a secular, and Biblical perspective), as journalists need food on the table. Plus, I made a new friend here who likes classic anime from 20 years ago. If you want to support news articles, but do not want to use a paywall, some local libraries have licensing agreements with the New York Times, WaPo and other companies to allow library patrons free access to the news, covered by library expenses. That means a journalist can still get money to provide for their families and him/herself.

Today's thread will be on the ethics of gated journalism itself, and if there are potential alternatives to paywall systems for news. For instance, The Guardian and NPR rely on optional donations, as of April 2024. One could hypothetically choose to give a recurring donation of $10/mo to NPR, or a one-time support of £1 to The Guardian. For those who do science research, science journals are notorious for charging dozens of dollars per paper. However, there are scientific journals that have an open access system, such as MDPI, established in 1996. Here is a Guardian Article about paywalled science journals: Paywalls block scientific progress. Research should be open to everyone | Jason Schmitt

The Guardian's Statement of Open News

Alright, to the meat of the matter, from both a secular and theological perspective (cos both sides are beneficial):


From a Secular Perspective:

Secular Arguments for Open Access:
1. Advancement of Knowledge: Making scientific and news articles open access allows for the free flow of information, enabling researchers and the public to build on each other's work, leading to new discoveries and advancements in various fields.
2. Accessibility: Open access ensures that everyone, regardless of their financial situation or institutional affiliation, can access vital information for personal growth, education, and decision-making.
3. Economic Efficiency: Open access reduces the overall cost of research by eliminating paywalls and subscription fees, which ultimately benefits researchers, funding agencies, and the public.
4. Transparency and Accountability: Making information freely available promotes transparency and accountability, as individuals can verify the accuracy and validity of claims made in scientific or news articles.

Secular Arguments against Open Access:
1. Financial Sustainability: Many publishers rely on subscription fees to cover their costs and generate revenue, which could be put at risk if all content becomes open access. Journalists may not recieve a steady stream of income.
2. Quality Control: Open access does not necessarily guarantee the quality or credibility of the information being shared, as anyone can publish online. Therefore, some argue that there should be a way to vet and verify the accuracy of published content.
3. Intellectual Property: Publishers and authors have the right to protect their intellectual property, which can be a challenge when it comes to open access.


From a Biblical Perspective:

Biblical Arguments for Open Access:
1. Pursuit of Knowledge (Proverbs 1:5 ESV): "Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance, to understand a proverb and a saying, the words of the wise and their riddles." This verse emphasizes the importance of seeking knowledge and understanding. Open access to scientific and news articles supports this pursuit by making vital information accessible to all.
2. Sharing Knowledge (Matthew 10:16 ESV): "Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." This verse suggests that sharing knowledge can help people make informed, wise decisions when going out into the world and distinguish between right and wrong. Open access promotes this by making information readily available to everyone.
3. Transparency (Job 12:22 NIV): "He [God] reveals the deep things of darkness and brings utter darkness into the light." This verse highlights the importance of transparency and shedding light on hidden matters. Open access supports this by making information publicly available for scrutiny and verification.

Biblical Arguments against Open Access:
1. Intellectual Property (Exodus 20:15 KJV): "Thou shalt not steal." This verse emphasizes the importance of respecting other people's property, including their intellectual creations. Publishers and authors have a right to protect and profit from their work, which can be a challenge with open access.
2. Discernment (1 Thessalonians 5:21 NAS): "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good." This verse encourages individuals to use discernment and evaluate information carefully. Open access does not guarantee the accuracy or credibility of published content, making it essential for people to critically assess what they read and consult multiple sources.
3. Supporting the Community (Proverbs 11:24 ESV): "One gives freely, yet grows all the richer; another withholds what he should give, and only suffers want." This verse highlights the importance of contributing to one's community and supporting those who provide valuable services. By paying for subscriptions or purchasing access to content, individuals can help support publishers and the broader scientific and journalistic community.

 

[bèlla]

The bible says the laborer is worthy of his wages. Businesses aren't required to provide free content on the Internet. And as you've noted, access is available through other mediums. Home access is a conveniences and the latter are rarely free. Libraries are brimming with books and newspapers.

More companies and content creators are moving in this direction and I support it. Access has nurtured a sense of entitlement (for some) and the expectation that everything will be given away that's wholly unrealistic.

If someone disagrees they're welcome to follow suit. Do the research, write the articles, do the search engine optimization and promotion on social media. Run the ads, make the graphics, write the newsletter, create products and so on. But you'd better have deep pockets because it doesn't come cheap. Everything I mentioned has related expenses whether you're making money or not. They aren't giving it away or waiting for you to turn a profit.

~bella

 

[chevyontheriver]

The bible says the laborer is worthy of his wages. Businesses aren't required to provide free content on the Internet. And as you've noted, access is available through other mediums. Home access is a conveniences and the latter are rarely free. Libraries are brimming with books and newspapers.

More companies and content creators are moving in this direction and I support it. Access has nurtured a sense of entitlement (for some) and the expectation that everything will be given away that's wholly unrealistic.

If someone disagrees they're welcome to follow suit. Do the research, write the articles, do the search engine optimization and promotion on social media. Run the ads, make the graphics, write the newsletter, create products and so on. But you'd better have deep pockets because it doesn't come cheap. Everything I mentioned has related expenses whether you're making money or not. They aren't giving it away or waiting for you to turn a profit.

~bella

While I wish all articles were open access I get it that a reporter has to eat. And provide food and shelter and clothes for their family. I participate in paying an $8 fee for 'The Pillar' each month and I find it worth it. OTOH I pay nothing for 'Big Pulpit' and while the idea is great the posts aren't necessarily every day, but whenever the author can get around to it. Since Round Tuits are hard to come by it isn't as frequent as 'The Pillar'.

 

[AlexB23]

While I wish all articles were open access I get it that a reporter has to eat. And provide food and shelter and clothes for their family. I participate in paying an $8 fee for 'The Pillar' each month and I find it worth it. OTOH I pay nothing for 'Big Pulpit' and while the idea is great the posts aren't necessarily every day, but whenever the author can get around to it. Since Round Tuits are hard to come by it isn't as frequent as 'The Pillar'.

Yeah, reporters need food, shelter and clothing, so paying for news helps them. By the way, what is a Round Tuit? For me, I pay $15-20 a month during the winter and summer months to a local organization that pays heating bills for the poor. During the spring and fall, I typically choose a different organization each month.

 

[AlexB23]

The bible says the laborer is worthy of his wages. Businesses aren't required to provide free content on the Internet. And as you've noted, access is available through other mediums. Home access is a conveniences and the latter are rarely free. Libraries are brimming with books and newspapers.

More companies and content creators are moving in this direction and I support it. Access has nurtured a sense of entitlement (for some) and the expectation that everything will be given away that's wholly unrealistic.

If someone disagrees they're welcome to follow suit. Do the research, write the articles, do the search engine optimization and promotion on social media. Run the ads, make the graphics, write the newsletter, create products and so on. But you'd better have deep pockets because it doesn't come cheap. Everything I mentioned has related expenses whether you're making money or not. They aren't giving it away or waiting for you to turn a profit.

~bella

Agreed. My local library has both print and digital copies or news. My library also gives home access to articles as well, I just need to set it up with my library card. Yeah, the internet has sadly given some people a sense of entitlement to get everything for free, which is totally unrealistic. For instance, Wikipedia always asks for donations, as not enough people give to Wikipedia, same with The Guardian.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yeah, reporters need food, shelter and clothing, so paying for news helps them. By the way, what is a Round Tuit? For me, I pay $15-20 a month during the winter and summer months to a local organization that pays heating bills for the poor. During the spring and fall, I typically choose a different organization each month.

round tuit

noun​

1. A circular object giving its owner the ability to get done everything that would have otherwise been put off to a later date.

Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License • More at Wordnik

 

[AlexB23]

round tuit

noun​

1. A circular object giving its owner the ability to get done everything that would have otherwise been put off to a later date.

Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License • More at Wordnik

Nice, so a tuit, of the round form, is basically a token to prevent procrastination. People actually sell these.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Nice, so a tuit, of the round form, is basically a token to prevent procrastination. People actually sell these.

You can also get wooden nickels. Really.

 

[AlexB23]

You can also get wooden nickels. Really.

That is funny. What a strange and cool world we live in. Continuing the strange materials for items theme, glass houses exist also: Architect Philip Johnson's Glass House

 

[partinobodycular]

I'm sorry, but once again I'm gonna be the outlier, but at least now I've had some time to think about why I have the attitude that I do. Basically it comes down to two things. The first is an affinity that I've always had for the poor and downtrodden. When it comes to most people I'm usually pretty indifferent... I don't care... it's not my problem. But when it comes to someone less fortunate... for whom life has been less than kind... then, for some unknown reason... I do care. Perhaps it's simply because I know that "There but for the grace of God go I.

The second reason that I have the attitude that I do is a principle that I've lived by for over fifty years, "Never sell anything that you can give away". If you sincerely need it, whatever is mine, is yours... I'll happily give it to you. I know that for a lot of people the hardest thing to do is to ask. I've also had enough experience with homeless people to know that some people have absolutely no problem with asking. But generally, it's not that hard to tell the difference., and it's far better that I should go without, than that someone else should. I'm not a big fan of 'stuff' anyway.

So to me the idea that I have something that someone else wants, and I'm unwilling to give it to them unless they pay me for it, is unfathomable. I simply couldn't live with myself if I did that. Sure, it means that I'll never be rich, as some people judge richness, but like I said... I don't care.

So if I owned a newspaper, you can bet your life that there wouldn't be a paywall. There would just be the faith that if what we did is good enough, someone like me will come along and make sure that we survive. We may not get rich... but then again, for some of us, life isn't about getting rich.

 

[AlexB23]

I'm sorry, but once again I'm gonna be the outlier, but at least now I've had some time to think about why I have the attitude that I do. Basically it comes down to two things. The first is an affinity that I've always had for the poor and downtrodden. When it comes to most people I'm usually pretty indifferent... I don't care... it's not my problem. But when it comes to someone less fortunate... for whom life has been less than kind... then, for some unknown reason... I do care. Perhaps it's simply because I know that "There but for the grace of God go I.

The second reason that I have the attitude that I do is a principle that I've lived by for over fifty years, "Never sell anything that you can give away". If you sincerely need it, whatever is mine, is yours... I'll happily give it to you. I know that for a lot of people the hardest thing to do is to ask. I've also had enough experience with homeless people to know that some people have absolutely no problem with asking. But generally, it's not that hard to tell the difference., and it's far better that I should go without, than that someone else should. I'm not a big fan of 'stuff' anyway.

So to me the idea that I have something that someone else wants, and I'm unwilling to give it to them unless they pay me for it, is unfathomable. I simply couldn't live with myself if I did that. Sure, it means that I'll never be rich, as some people judge richness, but like I said... I don't care.

So if I owned a newspaper, you can bet your life that there wouldn't be a paywall. There would just be the faith that if what we did is good enough, someone like me will come along and make sure that we survive. We may not get rich... but then again, for some of us, life isn't about getting rich.

I see your point ma'am, and agree on some things. Maybe we could place a limit on CEO wealth (<$1B), income (<$500,000/yr), and a limit on profit margins (say, 25%). I care about the poor also, but most libraries have ways for the poor, or anyone else to read the paper for free, legally and ethically. The only time anyone should bypass paywalls is if there is a national emergency such as a pandemic or war on national soil wherever you reside, and people have to read the news, but thankfully, the NYT got rid of their paywall for COVID-19 related articles during the pandemic.

So, if you want to bypass paywalls yourself, you can in theory using software (as God gave us free will), but based upon my renewed ethical standpoint that I have learned, I will no longer be bypassing paywalls since yesterday, April 18, 2024. Plus, The Guardian, BBC, NPR and a few other news agencies do not have paywalls, so if you want free news, you can go there. Heck, even the open-weights, free and private artificial intelligence (Mistral Instruct 7B) installed on my laptop says that bypassing paywalls is unethical.

 

[bèlla]

So if I owned a newspaper, you can bet your life that there wouldn't be a paywall. There would just be the faith that if what we did is good enough, someone like me will come along and make sure that we survive. We may not get rich... but then again, for some of us, life isn't about getting rich.

If you owned a newspaper you'd have responsibilities to your employees and creditors. How would you fund it? Where would the lost revenue come from? Ads aren't free and their intention is to sell. You'd need to have something in its place to honor your commitments or you'll fail them too and go bankrupt.

The traffic expenses alone would probably surprise you. They're not paying $20 a month for hosting. And there's web development and security. There's a lot of things happening behind the scenes to help a business function.

~bella

 

[bèlla]

I see your point ma'am, and agree on some things. Maybe we could place a limit on CEO wealth (<$1B), income (<$500,000/yr), and a limit on profit margins (say, 25%).

They'll never agree because the salaries are accounted for elsewhere and margins will grow with the metaverse. When you speak of limiting salaries are you speaking of fortune 500 entities or everyone that owns a business large or small?

~bella

 

[AlexB23]

They'll never agree because the salaries are accounted for elsewhere and margins will grow with the metaverse. When you speak of limiting salaries are you speaking of fortune 500 entities or everyone that owns a business large or small?

~bella

Mainly Fortune 500 companies, but the hypothetical CEO salary limit should apply to everyone. For profit margins, a lot of small businesses need a high margin to get on a right footing, so a 25% margin limit would not be feasible, but for big pharma or large companies, then a 25% profit margin limit might make sense.

 

[bèlla]

Mainly Fortune 500 companies, but the hypothetical CEO salary limit should apply to everyone. For profit margins, a lot of small businesses need a high margin to get on a right footing, so a 25% margin limit would not be feasible, but for big pharma or large companies, then a 25% profit margin limit might make sense.

How would you get the money from them? And let's play devils advocate for a moment.

$500k isn't hard to earn in this medium. There's less overhead. That's why many love it. Let's say you have a small storefront selling digital products and you're earning $10k per week and its steadily increasing as you add more items to the store.

Your dilemma is two-fold. You can't limit patronage. If someone wants your products they'll buy them which will increase your income demonstratively for the reasons mentioned. But here's the sticky part. You're a CEO, how is the rule enforced? Is the government making a quarterly grab or are you're expected to hand it over willingly?

That's the difference that globalism has wrought. If a market is unfavorable the company pulls out or moves their headquarters to somewhere else with better conditions. And there's a lot of entrepreneurs in that pool. I can't think of any that would allow that measure of control.

No one wants to be told how to spend their money or have caps on their earning potential if their prowess commands it. It isn't fair because the majority aren't CEOs or capable of building multimillion dollar entities or greater. If they could they'd be in the position you've described.

We don't live in a flat society. We live in a culture that values some things more than others and rewards them accordingly. You can argue about fairness to some degree and I'm not dispelling the importance of livable wages and good working conditions. But I've been on both sides of the aisle.

Execution requires more than ideas. Many people have ideas for different ventures. But they don't know how to put them in motion. That's what founders do. They don't know how to grow the entity. That's what CEOs do. You don't go to school to learn that. A lot of it is innate. It's a skill.

I could take your OP and turn it into a product because that's the way my mind works and they're the same. They see opportunities and holes in the market that others haven't noticed and devise products to address them. That's their unfair advantage.

Business is the realm of leadership and strategy. Creativity plays a part but without the others it will fail. Some people are really good at that. Some people are good at other things. God knits us differently. But it all comes from Him.

~bella

 

[AlexB23]

How would you get the money from them? And let's play devils advocate for a moment.

$500k isn't hard to earn in this medium. There's less overhead. That's why many love it. Let's say you have a small storefront selling digital products and you're earning $10k per week and its steadily increasing as you add more items to the store.

Your dilemma is two-fold. You can't limit patronage. If someone wants your products they'll buy them which will increase your income demonstratively for the reasons mentioned. But here's the sticky part. You're a CEO, how is the rule enforced? Is the government making a quarterly grab or are you're expected to hand it over willingly?

That's the difference that globalism has wrought. If a market is unfavorable the company pulls out or moves their headquarters to somewhere else with better conditions. And there's a lot of entrepreneurs in that pool. I can't think of any that would allow that measure of control.

No one wants to be told how to spend their money or have caps on their earning potential if their prowess commands it. It isn't fair because the majority aren't CEOs or capable of building multimillion dollar entities or greater. If they could they'd be in the position you've described.

We don't live in a flat society. We live in a culture that values some things more than others and rewards them accordingly. You can argue about fairness to some degree and I'm not dispelling the importance of livable wages and good working conditions. But I've been on both sides of the aisle.

Execution requires more than ideas. Many people have ideas for different ventures. But they don't know how to put them in motion. That's what founders do. They don't know how to grow the entity. That's what CEOs do. You don't go to school to learn that. A lot of it is innate. It's a skill.

I could take your OP and turn it into a product because that's the way my mind works and they're the same. They see opportunities and holes in the market that others haven't noticed and devise products to address them. That's their unfair advantage.

Business is the realm of leadership and strategy. Creativity plays a part but without the others it will fail. Some people are really good at that. Some people are good at other things. God knits us differently. But it all comes from Him.

~bella

Well, that would be a hard thing. Maybe, tax all income above $500,000/yr at a 100% rate, and use that money to house the poor. We could try to keep our Gini Index under 0.4 for a start.

Gini Index from World Bank
Legend: >50 50 40 30 No Data

 

[bèlla]

Well, that would be a hard thing. Maybe, tax all income above $500,000/yr at a 100% rate, and use that money to house the poor. We could try to keep our Gini Index under 0.4 for a start.

Can philanthropy be forced? And if it was how long do you think your society would have people like that within it? If you tax the remainder at 100% they'll go elsewhere. China tried a similar approach and they left. Mobility is a benefit of affluence and most have other passports or they're acquiring them.

You're not dealing with a population that's stuck or without options. That's why it's difficult to enforce. I'm a huge proponent of philanthropy and there's things I want to fund. But I want the option to choose. And if you're taking the extra that's no more.

You won't have foundations and charities. You won't get large donations to hospitals or ministries. All of that disappears. Is that what you want? The government isn't paying for everything in society. A lot of it comes from private funds.

Consider the museums and the arts. How do you think they're built? Haven't you noticed the plaques and references to donations? Uncle Sam didn't buy it. That came from someone's collection. Have you ever seen a state run hospital versus a private one?

You're benefiting more than you realize. We all are. Some are more aware than others.

~bella

 

[AlexB23]

Can philanthropy be forced? And if it was how long do you think your society would have people like that within it? If you tax the remainder at 100% they'll go elsewhere. China tried a similar approach and they left. Mobility is a benefit of affluence and most have other passports or they're acquiring them.

You're not dealing with a population that's stuck or without options. That's why it's difficult to enforce. I'm a huge proponent of philanthropy and there's things I want to fund. But I want the option to choose. And if you're taking the extra that's no more.

You won't have foundations and charities. You won't get large donations to hospitals or ministries. All of that disappears. Is that what you want? The government isn't paying for everything in society. A lot of it comes from private funds.

Consider the museums and the arts. How do you think they're built? Haven't you noticed the plaques and references to donations? Uncle Sam didn't buy it. That came from someone's collection. Have you ever seen a state run hospital versus a private one?

You're benefiting more than you realize. We all are. Some are more aware than others.

~bella

I agree with you, and I have noticed a lot of plaques wherever I go. And who knows what happens if the governments collects the 100% remainder, as many people would leave as you said, or the government will not spend the tax revenue on helping the poor or ministries. So, you have changed my mind mostly. So, maybe an income cap would not be the best idea, but a wealth cap could be, as some of these CEOs have multiple billions of dollars.

 

[partinobodycular]

If you owned a newspaper you'd have responsibilities to your employees and creditors. How would you fund it? Where would the lost revenue come from? Ads aren't free and their intention is to sell. You'd need to have something in its place to honor your commitments or you'll fail them too and go bankrupt.

The traffic expenses alone would probably surprise you. They're not paying $20 a month for hosting. And there's web development and security. There's a lot of things happening behind the scenes to help a business function.

Assuming that this isn't a startup, but a going concern, I'd consider a number of different revenue models, including a multi-tiered pay model with the lowest tier being free, but ad driven, then perhaps a donation driven tier, with perks like being able to comment on articles. Then of course there's affiliated partnerships and corporate sponsors. But something that I'm curious about is whether you could pull together a number of different news sources into a sponsorship model like Skillshare or Brilliant in which people pay a subscription fee that gives them access to a number of different news sources across a broad political/social spectrum. This could be a gateway to exposing people to different points of view. The proceeds that each news source would garner from being included in this model could then be used to help fund each news sources free/ad/donation driven website, which wouldn't have the same ease of access that the collective model does, hence encouraging people to sign up for the paid model rather than signing up for several individual news sites, even if they're free.

I really have no experience in this area, but if I was tasked with finding a way to solve the funding problem I'd certainly do my best to make sure that I got that done, and that my staff was well compensated.

But all that I can really do is say that I'd do my best... I learned a long time ago not to promise what even the best of intentions can't guarantee.

 

[bèlla]

I agree with you, and I have noticed a lot of plaques wherever I go. And who knows what happens if the governments collects the 100% remainder, as many people would leave as you said, or the government will not spend the tax revenue on helping the poor or ministries. So, you have changed my mind mostly. So, maybe an income cap would not be the best idea, but a wealth cap could be, as some of these CEOs have multiple billions of dollars.

Our government isn't the most responsible and we've seen where their priorities are. It isn't with the citizens. Departures are underway but they aren't reporting it. Second passports are increasing and people are looking elsewhere. Recent crypto news will fuel the same.

We're entering a period of immense income gaps. Far greater than we have at present. What they're not saying during the disinformation spiel is what is fueling the next wave of multimillionaires and beyond. They keep saying it's a hoax so no one buys and it remains in limited hands.

I try to live with this in mind.

And I tell you [learn from this], make friends for yourselves [for eternity] by means of the wealth of unrighteousness [that is, use material resources as a way to further the work of God], so that when it runs out, they will welcome you into the eternal dwellings.

I can do a lot of good in His name but don't ever think it's a cakewalk. I don't talk about the things I have to consider or avoid or the realities of a smaller Christian presence. Everything has a price.

~bella