Because that 500 bytes of text have cost the publisher quite a lot to be written, and the other ten megabytes of ads and tracking code account for that.
I hate advertisments as much as the next guy, but it's a little astonishing to me how people expect journalism to be free. Papers have to monetize their content somehow, otherwise they'd be unable to provide it.
So nationalize it! Isn’t that the HN solution to everything? ;)
You jest, but doesn't just about every country have a government-owned/government-funded news producing organisation? The ABC, the BBC, the CBC, the ARD, PBS etc. etc.
Many times that text was written by a random commenter though, and commenters are almost never paid.
These publishers pay very little for the content to be written. Vast majority these days is written by a low paid writer just out of college, not even a living wage. Real journalists have been let go. Newsrooms are mostly a depressing place to work these days, compared to 20 years ago.
I think a more fitting question is why should google showcase the ten megabyte page so far up the results. Perhaps because those ads that cause the bloat are likely served by them.