A dark pattern all too common these days. I hate the modern web.
This is a belief I strongly disagree with that has become pervasive on HN: "I don't like this thing so it is a dark pattern/is toxic, etc." People will, on the one hand, decry the current state of news media and bemoan how Google and/or Facebook have destroyed or perversely mutated it, while, on the other hand, decry the efforts of the news media to monetize (aka get paid) for their efforts.
There is no free lunch. Journalism isn't free. Labor isn't free. We certainly aren't entitled to the free use of the products of each other's labor.
Sure, but it's rude to present something and then take it away. Google used to downrank sites who did this, anyone remember how awful experts exchange was? If they want to have a paywall then they should have a paywall.
On a similar note it’s using unnecessary power (quite possibly from a battery of limited capacity) rendering a paywall with an effect nobody wants to see, except probably the people who made it.
There’s an easy solution: HTTP response 402: payment required
In 402's case, if it was, say, legislated by the government, then the following would happen:
(1) Users wouldn't be bait-and-switch'ed by a paywall that revealed part of the content before appearing
(2) Companies would need to band together to implement a micropayments framework
(3) Lasseiz-faire maximalists wouldn't be able to complain because the only requirement would be that paywalls be signalled by an HTTP status code
The only potential downside is that companies might, instead of making a common micropayments API, instead just use Google, or even worse, not use any common platform and instead make consumers sign up for a new account for each site.
Lightning Service Authentication Tokens[1] (LSATs) provide a standard that’s usable today.
With a Lightning Network browser integration like Alby[2] you can access paywalled content behind a proxy like Aperture[3], and it’s a very smooth process already.
However, it’s also not my problem to solve. That’s a problem for Wired to solve. How I feel about these UX patterns and business models is not negotiable; it’s an honest reaction. How Wired makes money and deals with free use is negotiable.
The internet has not been kind to many business models, particularly, it has been rough on paying for content. That’s just what happens when copying costs basically $0. You can pirate almost anything and people definitely do. Many people will immediately hop on archive.is if they hit one of these patterns. Personally I often just don’t read the article and leave.
In the end, it isn’t my problem if people don’t like my attitude. Wired is trying to sell to me, so it is absolutely their problem if I don’t like this pattern. And guess what? I am, in fact, a former Wired subscriber. Maybe they make more money now that they paywall, but I don’t even care. I’m still going to hate them for it.
Likewise, I will never like or respect being forced into advertisements. If I like something enough, I will pay for it. I pay for YouTube and it feels like a win/win for me.
If it works for them today, good for them. It works for some big publications. Let’s see how that continues to pan out as subscription fatigue increases and publications close up content almost entirely.
You clicked a link to a Wired article that someone posted on Hacker News. Wired was not involved.
Digital properties aren't going to be groomed to meet your precise tastes. This is doubly so for general interest publications like Wired that have to appeal to a broad base of viewers and can't charge more than a few bucks for a subscription.
If the article is valuable but paywalled, there are ways to get around that. Try turning off Javascript or accessing the page in an incognito browser. archive.ph can also work.
> You clicked a link to a Wired article that someone posted on Hacker News. Wired was not involved.
Well, to some extent, I'd argue they _are_ trying to sell to him. From everything I've seen the whole "display the whole page of content and then block with javascript" is done so that the whole page of content gets indexed by Google. If so, then they are intentionally trying to lure non-customers to their site with that content. Admittedly, coming from HN isn't exactly the same, but it's the same general audience of non-subscribers they want to come look at their content and subscribe.
So non-free stories should not get any free promotion on HN then. Non-free outlets are not entitled to get their free share of my attention.
Where can I send the bill for the occasions where they managed to fly under the radar and grab a bit of my attention without paying (me) for it?
I think you've got that backwards
It's just a bait and switch. These journalists want all the benefits of the web: free indexing and archiving, free global distribution and rendering, virtual word-of-mouth advertising; a huge and easy revenue generation model. Their production and design costs are nothing compared to two decades ago. They don't own printing presses. The internet pretty much bends over backwards to throw traffic at them, and on top of that, they rip the rug out under your feet as soon as you land there! Like you can't even read the words that they wrote unless you agree to more bother, and they've already made a few cents off you just from the ads that were served! And to boot, the whole show shoved megabytes of crap in your face, which actually costs you money, and they follow you around the internet like an unimaginable creep.
It's like they feel entitled to all this free stuff and the one thing they offer of value they pull back at the last second. Shitty.
A few cents, for one page load?! lol
FTE salaries, healthcare, equipment, business expenses, travel costs, legal fees, etc, etc versus...few cents? Maybe it would help the conversation if you can you quantify what you think they're actually earning from all the "free stuff" as you claim.
> These journalists want all the benefits of the web
Where's this coming from? Where's this "want"? Most of the stuff that you listed is either explicitly paid for or just comes with the web automatically.
> free indexing
Yes, Google offers free indexing because they get search engine ad revenue as a result. There's no "stealing" here.
> archiving
Hosting costs money. Journalists pay for that themselves. There's nothing "free" about it. The end.
> free global distribution
They're also paying bandwidth costs.
> and rendering
There's no way to view a page on the internet without rendering it on your computer. That's not something that journalists are taking advantage of - it's how the internet works. Also, publishers pay for hosting costs, too...
> virtual word-of-mouth advertising
Word-of-mouth is completely unrelated to the internet.
> a huge and easy revenue generation model
Please don't tell me that you're complaining about publishers trying to recoup costs of the journaling process. Who's going to pay for the salaries of writers? Infrastructure costs? Distribution? Web development?
> Their production and design costs are nothing compared to two decades ago.
...and yet, the costs are still there. Publishing is not free, especially if you want content to publish, and especially if you want quality content.
> It's like they feel entitled to all this free stuff and the one thing they offer of value they pull back at the last second.
The only entitlement here is you feeling entitled to the work of journalists. This is a rant with little substance behind it, predicated on the false assumption that publishers and journalists have no costs.
So print newspapers, and sell them. I regard the worldwide web as free to use; I treat sites that don't share my view as not being part of the worldwide web.
The world is full of interesting websites. If a website doesn't want me to read it, that's fine, I'll move on.
It loads just fine with NoScript enabled. It also loads instantaneously (well, almost - ~200ms) and doesn't autoplay video or nag about cookies.
But I agree that it sucks to be here. And while I agree that journalism is between a rock and a hard place to all of our detriment, not sure "Wired" is that kind of journalism.
Designing something to deliberately annoy people when they could just be upfront about things seems like a tricksy way to behave IMHO.
I suppose you mean "I hate people making money off the modern web"
or just disable javascript