5mo ago

Would you stop donating to a free service if it started putting up paywalls?

I've been donating to the news site Vox for a while now, and all their content has so far been free. I felt kinda bad about blocking the ads on their site and fast-forwarding through all the ad breaks in their podcasts. So in the spirit of actually supporting something I like, I started chipping in a few bucks a month.

But recently, they've started putting some of their articles behind a paywall. Since I was already donating, I automatically have access. But for some reason, I feel like I don't wanna pay anymore. It's not like it costs me more, but there's just something about dontating to a free site vs paying for exclusive content that doesn't feel the same. Maybe cuz I'm not a fan of paywalls in general, so I don't want to support companies that implement them.

Does that make sense? What would you do? And if you're not a fan of Vox, maybe think of some other free service/content, like videos from a streamer or a software project or something.

32 comments

Yes. By replacing your voluntary charity with a payment scheme, they’ve deprived you of the value of giving.
They changed the deal. It’s perfectly rational to want to stop consuming their content.
Whether you do is up to you, but you’re not crazy or anything for feeling deprived.

Journalism isn't free. For a different type of service, I would reconsider if I wanted to continue supporting them. But good journalism is disappearing, so I think if you're in a position to help keep it going, you should.

The industries supporting journalism have basically collapsed over the past few decades. If you have the means to support decent research and writing, please do so.
- Agreed. 404media is one I pay and support.

But recently, they’ve started putting some of their articles behind a paywall. Since I was already donating, I automatically have access.
In that case I don't see a problem. In a lot of ways your donation became a subscription, but then again, news cost money to make. This was true during the print days, and is no less true during the digital age.
- Justifying prices is an oxymoron.
  Either there’s a case for giving them money, or the basis of payment is the value being obtained in the article. Arguing for a price based on the costs behind it mixes the two frames and creates confusion.
  It’s a law of demeter violation.
  Once the paywall goes up, OP’s healthiest decision-making frame is “is consuming this content worth $X to me or not?”. If they wanted OP to worry about how much it costs to make news, they should have left it voluntary.
  
  I see OPs point. I donate to Wikipedia, because I love what they do and want to support them. If they decided to put up pay walls, my personal feelings on their model would alter. Even if I got access as a doner.
  I would no longer be inclined to donate, because I would no longer believe in what they do.
- It's like how the panhandlers started blocking my way and requiring a toll payment to get to the subway.
  Just like that.
  It's like my donation became a subscription.
  
  No but you bring up a good example: You don't get your sub for donating money to Subway. You have to pay them to get it. But in return, it provides a - questionable, some would say - service to you by providing you with food.

I do not think I blame any services or sites for paywalls especially if its part of their financial model to continue operations and providing services.
There are many free services I have the privilege of being able to pay for to support: Proton, StoryGraph, Wikipedia. I used to donate to Pocket but no longer. I want these services to continue and am privileged enough to be able to donate
- I want these services to continue and am privileged enough to be able to donate
  I think this is the best model from sociatsl perspective. I like service that are available to everyone for free at least to some degree.
  I pay for some things as an adult wage slave, I can do it and I do it with idea that it is my turn to pay.
  When I was young I couldn't and I didn't but somebody else paid or Foss chads just did for the people.
  I used to pay for content too but media industry lost their fucking minds so I am radicalized now...

I would only consider donating in the first place if it were not only free to access, but also licensed under a free license. I have donated to freely licensed projects before, but not to merely freely accessible websites.

I would stop. At that point it's not really a donation, but a payment. I don't know how much of that donation to consider a "payment".
Similarly I didn't get the Tor Project stickers. I don't know how much the stickers, envelope and postage cost them, thus I couldn't determine the amount that is "donation". As such, I opted not to take them. Just the same with Fediverse Canvas 2024 stickers. Some amount of that has went for Canvas development, but how much I don't know. Once again I opted for donation only.
I'd like them in both cases. Perhaps $3 (excl. shipping) per sticker is still OK to consider a purchase, but $25 for a few stickers, meh.
Anyway, my point is, if for the donation I am provided exclusive products or services and I either don't know their cost (to subtract from donation amount) or don't have the choice to opt out from being provided the services/products, I won't donate at all.
But even outside of that, it wouldn't pass. For me, one requirement for donating is that whatever group I am donating to provides everyone the same service no matter if you pay them or not. Otherwise I can't really consider it a donation, and I don't have the money to pay.
- I feel the same way you do and I think you articulated this difficult concept pretty well.
  How would you feel about a third, hybrid category called something like an “inflated price” or whatever, that’s understood to be a price above market value?

Vox half-assed their paywall - the full articles are still in the free RSS feed
- Doesn't address OP's question - still the most important comment.

I’m annoyed by paywalls but I understand and accept them. I never view my payment as a donation, it’s just a way to get access to content. What troubles me is when important information is hidden to the public that might guide you in your understanding of the world and therefore (political) decision making.

I have mixed feelings. “ Back in my day,”…. Before the internet (cough cough) the only free news was the TV. We paid a quarter each day for the newspaper, or $3-4 for a magazine. I’m sure spent $50 a month across a variety of sources. And that was in the 90’s. I feel guilty pasting link after link into archive myself because of the paywalls.
- Magazines cost $14 now!
  
  Free online with library card and Libby!

I grew up on an internet that was made by and for people who wanted you to visit their site.
If you offer something for free, become popular, then turn it into a paid service, I will no longer use it.
If i had enough money that i didn't notice everything that is behind a pay wall would care a lot less. But I've never been in that position from the day i was born and it looks like ill die without ever knowing what that is like so I'm certainly biased.
That being said i think paywalls can be redone so that everyone wins.
If you have a paywall that only blocks new content until x minutes/hours/days etc have elapsed then I think that's a good way to monetize something when costs endanger the existence of the thing

Ask yourself why you're donating in the first place. Is it so that good journalism can continue to exist regardless of who gets to see it? Is it to give everyone access to good journalism regardless of their ability to pay? Is it so that the journalists can continue producing content for you to consume yourself? Maybe it's something else?
If the company is no longer providing what you expect from them, then that's a good reason to stop donating.

If they're charging for access, they're now a business. I'd consider if I want to be a customer and if not, no further donations.

- I find it funny how the internet still rages sometimes.

Yes.

I love how the top 4 comments in this pretty active post represent a substantially different approaches to the question.

IMO, if you like a service/subscription and it's your choice to support them and thier content I wouldn't think twice.
My only paid subscription is MS office, because I've used Xcel almost my entire career (almost 30+ years use?) and have never paid for it until a couple years ago.
So I like the content, I use the service and pricer per annum is good for me (only a few more years and I'm done, so it still works out for me).
- Side note: do I have this right? You can actually picture a time in the foreseeable future where you never have to use Excel again?
  If so, I am soooo deeply envious of you :P
  
  Well...we all die at some point... right?

This seems backward to me.
Since your example is media. Them relying less on ads means they would cater and align more with their patron. In my anecdotal experience creators with sustainable patron also tend to produce higher quality products.
As an aside I also follow Vox, or at least a few of their talent pool juggernauts like Johnny Harris, Phil Edwards, How Town (Adam Cole & Joss Fong), and Cleo Abram. Most also have Patreon I think.

It depends. If Wikimedia does introduce a paywall they are SOL. I would absolutely fork them privately (I do copy the content for my language once in a while and the most important media)and never pay another penny.
If a news outlet changes, it's different,at least for me.

32 comments