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?

  • FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Agreed. Mods should be straight up removing posts from people who post pay walled links. I might go as far as to say they should even be banned. Absolute zero tolerance with this bullshit.

    Exit: judging from the comments it appears people like paywalled content? Rip.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      It isn’t that people like paywalled content, it is that people don’t like blanket rules for a decentralized system like the fediverse.

      • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        Banning anyone who posts inaccessible shit isn’t a blanket rule, it’s mere common sense.

        If it’s inaccessible it’s spam, and spam is intolerable by definition.

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 days ago

          But it isn’t inaccessible for a lot of people, who either pay for it or bypass the filter.

          Not everyone owns every video game. Should we ban discussion on video games?

      • FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        It would be up to mods of different communities to implement those rules. I rather have some common sense rules vs. a free for all where Lemmy is full of paywalled content, trolls, and AI garbage. Are you saying you’d like Lemmy to be trash?

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          Paywalled content is still useful for some users who either bypass the paywall or are already paying for it, so a blanket rule that bans it would be limiting what could be discussed.

          What does paywalls have to do with trolls and AI garbage? That some communities allow it (and others don’t)? I’m fine with some communities having that trash, because I can easily ignore it.

          What you want is centralized rules that apply to all of lemmy but somehow voluntarily?

          • FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            I’m not sure what you’re saying. I’m saying that individual communities should have rules against paywalled content, depending on what the community is. Many should have blanket rules against paywalls since a vast majority cannot access them.

            You sounded like you didn’t want any rules whatsoever so that’s why i asked about trolls and garbage. You either moderate a community or you don’t.

            • snooggums@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              You sounded like you didn’t want any rules whatsoever

              Where did I say that?

              Not wanting blanket rules for all communities doesn’t mean not wanting any rules.