Likewise, ads are fine in theory but the implementation is absolutely horrible.
Paywalls are also fine. Content producers choice. It's (un-annotated) links to paywalled content that is annoying.
If you don't want advertising and refuse to pay for content, I don't see how that's anything less than expecting free journalism.
There's more content these days than most people care for - to be honest, if 99% of sites were paywalled, I'd probably be far more productive and not surfing 'information' that is free for the sake of just existing.
If people don't want to pay for anything on principle, then there's not much sites can do about that either. Paywalls are a better option than advertising but sites are still probably going to lose a lot of revenue either way.
How is that dishonest? The alternative would be far worse (demanding payment without a preview of what you're paying for).
The problem with posting paywalled content isn't posting paywalled content. It's the entitled people who can't even be bothered to use well-known workarounds and instead completely derail discussions on political grounds.
"dishonest" may be too strong, perhaps just misleading - paywalled articles are often designed to appear as free articles. With a proper preview the reader would know as soon as they arrive that they will be expected to pay to read. I understand why sites prefer to hook you with partial content first, but that practice can appear deceptive.
>The problem with posting paywalled content isn't posting paywalled content. It's the entitled people who can't even be bothered to use well-known workarounds and instead completely derail discussions on political grounds.
I agree with you there - no one can post content from Wired anymore without someone starting a thread about the paywall. If you're not willing to read the article you should just not participate in the discussion about it.