One reason all these services are introducing ads is consumers’ learned unwillingness to bear the full costs of the services they enjoy.
I might argue that the true irony is grumbling about a news provider very reasonably limiting their product to those who have paid them.
They should have read some basic human psychology: it's extremely hard or impossible to take something away that was given for free for a long time. That's basic knowledge. My history and psychology teacher shared this tidbit with the class when I was in the 9th grade.
Furthermore, me and many others are not closed to the idea of paying for journalism but are not willing to track 20 subs across different services.
Bill me through my ISP. I'll pay it. Make an app tracking how much extra I'd pay the next month because I've read 5 FT, 3 WSJ and 7 NYT articles -- I want to know. Even better, put a banner beforehand: "Reading this article will add $0.05 to your monthly internet bill, press OK if you agree".
The technical and societal solutions are there. But the unfettered greed and everyone's desire to be the one and only still prevail. Hence: yes, I will expect free journalism until things change.
I'm not reading your site if you paywall it. There are too many other free resources that are just as good if not better.
Good journalism isn’t fungible — it costs money to produce. When we actively choose to not pay for media, we have no one but ourselves to blame for the awful biased or clickbait junk that results.
You could say that posting a paywalled article on a discussion board is just an ad for paywall subs.