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?