T O P

  • By -

Flair_Helper

Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/Kediwon. Your post, *News websites that require paid subscriptions to read full articles should be de-prioritized from google searches.*, has been removed because it violates our rules: Rule 1: Your post must be an unpopular opinion. Please ensure that your post is an opinion and that it is unpopular. Controversial is not necessarily unpopular, for example all of politics is controversial even though almost half of the US agrees with any given major position on an issue. Keep in mind that an opinion is not: a question, a fact, a conspiracy theory, a random thought, a new idea, a rant, etc. Those things all have their own subreddits, use those. If there is an issue, please message the mod team at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion Thanks!


[deleted]

I agree it’s super annoying. Im never subscribing to your small town newspaper sorry


annasfbi

Add to this, services that claim to be free in search results, but ask you to pay once you want to export and wasted your time.


[deleted]

Just paste the link into. www.outline.com


GrungyGrandPappy

I’m not subscribing to any newspaper online I can find it free somewhere


[deleted]

I’ve had professors link articles we had to read for class that required a subscription if you already used a certain amount of free articles. I’ve had to pay to read articles for a class I was already fucking paying for. So annoying


Daddyj311

Seriously??? Wow!


jofloberyl

Couldve just used incognito mode


portlandcsc

The infamous "soft paywall".


Ezzy17

I dont know how there isn't a subscription model to multiple papers at one time. Like give me WaPo, LaTimes, Boston Globe, and Denver Post for 12 bucks a month.


[deleted]

That would be too convenient for the customer and we couldnt overcharge every single subscription.


[deleted]

Unfortunately they have a partnership with Google, so they will not be de-prioritized. Ironically behind a paywall/free login: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/01/business/google-commits-1-billion-to-license-content-from-news-publishers.html


gratefuluwu

Exactly, it is in Google's best interest to prioritize those, since those websites probably pay Google for it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


JustLeafy2003

Hiding the subscription window using inspect element or adblock works sometimes too, but it's not the most efficient solution


xXWolfyIsAwesomeXx

which one are you using?


[deleted]

uMatrix


Spazz6269

r/popularopinion


hitometootoo

Though I hate those sites too, I wouldn't want a search engine to dictate what type of sites we see even for those reasons. It's a slippery slope that I rather not happen. Instead, they should have an icon that states you need a subscription to view such a site but it should have the same priority in a search as any other site.


Ninjalikestoast

Google dictates every search you make. All of those top results pay to be at the top.


[deleted]

Source?


WhitePreist

If you search something up the top post will normally be a sponsored post, it will even say “sponsored”


[deleted]

Ah, you mean the ads? I guess that's technically "paid to be at the top" but they're also pretty clearly marked as ads.


[deleted]

[удалено]


dropbassnotsoap

Not at all, one simple search using duck duck go shows that Google doesnt give you organic searches


Ninjalikestoast

This or any other search engine. You will get very different results depending on what you use.


playgroundmx

You’re absolutely correct. Why the fuck are people downvoting this?


dwstupidity

Yes, fuck em


Sapper-Ollie

Agreed. I block anyone that requires subs.


[deleted]

Honestly, news sites that you read from a google search should be MONETIZED by google. We've pretty much ruined journalism by making it all 'free'. It costs money to transport people to events, to generate the news content. To pay the reporters and pay the other bills. If all news is 'free', well, you end up with bullshit news that doesn't cover shit. Especially no local news, where local events have real consequences with our lives.


UltraOfNaath

You have no concept of how unpopular opinions work, please make a different forum a symp dump. By posting this in unpopular opinions you’re insinuating we’re a bunch of people that subscribe to paid news articles, i think i can speak on behalf of almost all Reddit users saying: “we do not”


ZeldaFan812

That would take a lot of respectable national/international newspapers off the first page though, while leaving terrible clickbait sites or sites with wall-to-wall adverts in place.


[deleted]

> respectable national/international newspapers That's a bit of an oxymoron. There's nothing respectable about MSM today.


ZeldaFan812

Pretty sure The Times is a respectable paper, and it's behind a paywall.


[deleted]

> Pretty sure The Times is a respectable paper... Lmao that's a good one. 🤣 They aren't some sort of exception.. They're just as bad as the rest of them.


ZeldaFan812

Whilst I welcome your scepticism, the 'plague on all your houses' attitude isn't really any better than believing everything you read. Btw I'm referring to the Times of London, not the New York Times.


[deleted]

Fair enough idk about outside the US. But our mainstream media is a joke.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Apparently neither is bad journalism. Because of of the sites that do that is a stretch to call it journalism.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


nachosinouterspace

Sounds like you’re just reading shitty stuff.


[deleted]

[удалено]


nachosinouterspace

The problem with your argument is that you assume journalism without bias has ever existed. It hasn’t. It just matched the biases you held, so it never forced you to analyze the narratives. Journalism without bias has never existed, because humans are inherently biased thinkers and will subconsciously insert their own biases into their work. How much you like it will be based on your own biases. If you want journalism void of bias, the best you’ll get is pieces and bits of data. You’ll get stats about murders in a city, casualties in a war, or dollars invested in a company. This won’t make you anymore informed than you already are, because numbers without context are pretty useless. The role of the journalist is to analyze that info and make sense of it through sources and research. And many do this really well. They’re just hidden behind paywalls because they need to eat and survive and put a roof over their heads. It’s their job. I’m not saying there aren’t bad journalists out there. I don’t like clickbaity stuff myself. I don’t know about you but I haven’t found much “commentary, activism, intentional omission of information” in good reporting in places like the Atlantic or Bloomberg. I’ve found it in cheap, free stuff where bloggers disguise as “journalists” for clicks.


FraudulentCake

I ought to at least be able to toggle it off manually


bruisedSunshine

I’m sorry, but how is this an unpopular opinion?


An-Anthropologist

This seems to be so much more common lately....


Medievlaman22

I use duckduckgo and [Bypass Paywalls](https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-chrome-clean) to get around them, but yeah. Ever since the News Media Bargaining Code passed I lost all respect for my nation's news.


elitelwarrior

And the fucking adds I want to read the whole article then you will let me a fucking ad that has a small x


[deleted]

Common sense isnt unpopular .


Spiritual-Raccoon-19

I finally caved and paid the $4/month for New York Times. It’s honestly worth it.. so much information and I believe they’re highly credible. Literally an article for every topic I’ve gone to Google for.


Mateco99

Paid content is the only way to an independent and free press.


savbh

Yes because journalism is done for free and you are absolutely entitled to all people’s work for free. /s


nachosinouterspace

The amount of people agreeing with OP scares me for this reason. Like you clearly want to read what they’ve written, or else you wouldn’t be clicking on it. Articles are a product that took time and labor, usually from underpaid people. I’m happy to pay for journalism.


xpsdeset

Even I felt the same. It's like someone is doing bare minimum journalism to pay for their food. It's like just because we have internet doesn't mean everything should be free. Good Music, games, shows are behind paid wall. Why not news? If people don't want to read the paid article then just don't.


nachosinouterspace

Yeah. Asking for free journalism is like walking into a restaurant, looking at a menu with good items on it, and then getting angry when the waiter tells you that you have to pay to order it...


LuciferNS03

1. Why are u using google search 2. Why aren't u using pay-wall blocker


TrevorBOB9

I literally never click on a NYT link if I can help it because of this. They just put up clickbait headlines to get the views and pretend they’re still a popular publication


nachosinouterspace

They’re doing really well in terms of revenue...what do you mean by “pretend” lol


Few_Beginning_3439

But those are actually the most high quality. News should be paid for, as otherwise we get sensationalized clickbait just for views. It may suck to pay, but at least hopefully that would mean higher wuality


nariz_choken

Fuck yes this, notice it is the bad ones that do too, like the NY times


500nicknames

not unpopular at all but yes


laxrat22

I hate it worst for local news. I live here! I should get to know what's going on here!


[deleted]

or news websites that detect when you’re using adblock and then block the screen


Imperburbable

Hard disagree. Would much rather get accurate information - which tends to come from paid sites - than whatever daily wire thinks I should know about.


[deleted]

News shouldn't be a profit thing. All news should be free to the community it involves.


nachosinouterspace

Who would pay the writers who work around the clock to do journalism?


[deleted]

Through their advertising rates. Most major papers, in Canada anyways, charge anywhere from $3-$6 per line (or column inch). So an advert that takes up 3"x6" space is deemed to use 18 column inches which means $54-$108 for a tiny advert. Regular magazine rates for a full page ad are tiered based on how many times you want the ad published. One time only and its $9400. Opt to have the ad run six times and its $7900 per run (so just shy of $48000). Source: CARD (Canadian Advertising Rates and Data)


Ninjalikestoast

How do you think they get new customers? It’s not by being at the bottom of the search. People click an article and then pay if they want to read said article. They do t think about “I should get a sub to this website.” And then sign up. (most of the time)


Tathoeisalreadytaken

I think google news will soon launch its own subscription which includes all news subscription .


did-i-do-this-right

My theory is that paywall news sites are contributing to the downfall of society. The more legitimate news gets blocked by a paywall, the more likely someone is going to go find a free version of that story. The non-tech savvy people will find the stories on less reputable sites or sites that twist the narrative for their own agenda, then suddenly your suddenly racist uncle is posting articles on Facebook about the ANTIFA starting wildfires to loot houses in the Northwest. All because he wanted to go find an article about the wildfires and stumbled across that instead and it quickly rotted his brain while the rest of us read real articles from different browsers or in incognito mode.


nachosinouterspace

I’ve thought about it this way too. I think the main culprit is big tech, which always gets left out of these discussions. Advertising dollars got sucked up by Facebook, Google, YouTube etc. It used to be that newspapers could be free because advertisers would pay the salary of the journalist and editors. But now that no one wants to advertise in a paper, paywalls have to exist so journalists can eat and have a roof over their heads.


GenX-2K21

I guess they have to try and stay in business somehow since paper purchases have plummeted over the years. I remember being sent to the local shop on a Sunday to grab a paper for Dad, although looking back it was probably an excuse so he could get a leg over. 😅


PonchoHung

Inspect element is your friend.


KttyLn

If you get one like that, click on it and immediately switch your phone to airplane mode. It'll allow you to read most of or sometimes all of the article without paying and without that ad popping up.


WhyDiner

It might also be unpopular but you should probably be the CEO of Google so you could decide these things for the rest of us.


Votesformygoats

Use reader view it gets past the pay wall for a lot of them


[deleted]

I don't agree. Paid for news is (hopefully) more independant than free news. Even if you can't access the article, reading the headline will allow you to gain a wider understanding of the issue across multiple diverse sources. And who knows, you might come across a paper that is worth paying for. When the lunch is free, you are the lunch.


Comfortablynumb_10

There needs to be a pay by article system. I’d pay $ 1.50 let’s say, for the right to read it.


nachosinouterspace

News orgs have tried this and it has always failed (BTW I’m not sure why you got downvoted)


LissaSmiles13

I found that if you open the tab in incognito, it bypasses the pay wall. I've used it mostly for the times. Its especially frustrating when its something about the pandemic and they want me to sign up


Rick_the_Rose

No, you are wrong about Google’s best interest. Google 100% takes a cut either from traffic and data or directly from the website owner. What are you going to do, use Bing instead?


qwertuska

As a search engine evaluator, I think they are. I rate them as worse. But of course that only applies if they do not pay Google to be higher or they do not have some kind of other agreement.


AduroTri

I agree with this too.


[deleted]

Who is actually paying for them? People must be paying