I started to notice some people posting NYT, Bloomberg or other websites with hard paywalls, that leads to people in the comments that are unable to read the article to discuess the headline without any analysis and some times spreading misinformation, which cannot be countered by the article, due to the paywall.
Which bring me to this: Why does no one thought about blocking hard paywalled articles for the sake of quality of discussion?
I don’t know what are you digging into.
I read by hour, due to my free time(usually it does fetch 50 articles per hour, much less on holidays and I only read the interesting ones to me.)
It’s pretty perfect for me.
Digging into?
I just say that reading news may be more enriching or, if you prefer, more useful when it’s not practiced like if it was a sausage eating contest.
You seem to enjoy eating a lot of news, that’s ok if that’s your thing, I’m only suggesting that eating less and more selectively could help you realize that all pay-walled content is not created for ‘enriching billionaires’, like you said earlier. Don’t get me wrong though, this is just a suggestion and you’re more than welcome to keep stuffing yourself with as much news as you fancy.
50 articles per hour? That’s not reading, that’s scrolling. Which is perfectly fine, here again don’t get me wrong, but scrolling a list of titles does not equal reading them (aka, getting a clear idea of what the author wrote and then be able to summarize their argument reliably).
50 articles per hour means spending at most 1 minute and somewhere between 10 or 20 seconds to read each article (with enough attention to be able to understand what is read) and that’s only if one is using every single minute of that hour, not doing anything else like scratching one’s nose not even yawning out of exhaustion.
I’m impressed this is perfect for you, and glad you found a system that works wonders. It certainly would not be perfect for me. Even though I consider myself an intensive reader I’m also not much into stuffing myself like you may have understood already. Also, I do not worry much about people sharing links to pay-walled content since it rarely worries me when I can’t read one specific article.
I don’t get your opinion.
I scroll in my feed for articles that interest me and ignore the others.
Example:
I am not interested into both articles, so I would ignore them till I find a interesting thing to read. How much time did it take for me here for 2 articles? 5 seconds max.
If I found a article that I am interested in, then I read it which would take anywhere between 5-20 mins.
Following less news sources, won’t benefit me at all.
Anyway, you seem to be focused on arguing without having any real argument to defend your opinion.
You seem pretty sure about that, I would not want to contradict you the slightest. I will get back to reading my (sometimes) pay-walled but billionaire-free articles. Thx for sharing your opinion, have a nice day.
You are making claims and arguing in a way that prove to me that you don’t have any arguments to defend your opinion, neither articles to read in general.
I am sure All the billionaires who own pay-walled media companies, thank you for your contributions.
Thank you for arguing with me for several comments, without having any thing to say.
Have a nice day.