It is usually a cost-benefit analysis. Is it worth it to restrict access and what is the cost in doing so?
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
48 points (98.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26916 readers
1987 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Because fundamentally DRM doesn't work. It's effectively impossible to stop a determined attacker from gaining access to the information while also making it easy and convenient for the general public to access.
The point of pay walls is to be just annoying enough that 90% of the public go "screw it, have a few dollars", not to stop the 10% of people who were never going to pay you regardless.
Those are typically explicitly allowed through for various reasons. They want people to pay, but they also don't want to stop Google/Bing and others from indexing it, and also archive sites. Which is why often people go through archive sites to bypass the paywalls, those can get a clean copy of the article and redistribute it.
It's not a big problem enough that they're probably deeming the loophole acceptable as most people still end up paying for it.
easily defeated by people who bother to search the internet
You overestimate the number of people who are savvy enough to bypass paywalls, or at least willing to put in the effort to find the content elsewhere . It's an insignificant number compared to the general population that it's probably more costly for them to do something about it rather than let it be.
Enough people want to pay for the convenience of getting all their news from one place so I guess they figure it doesn't really make that big of a difference
Cost vs reward.
Is is worth spending several thousands of dollars to develop systems to block access. How many wil actually sign up?
The irony is that said systems that successfully block access are how many websites worked as far back as the late 90s, with "member exclusive" areas.
The people bypassing the paywall aren't going to pay in the first place, no point in wasting resources on it.
Bandwidth isn't free, though I guess the amount of bypassers register as a cost in dimes in that regard
If you use a middleman such as archive.is it's not their bandwidth anymore but the middleman's. In most cases these services don't act as a proxy but store a backup of the article on their servers. Not sure if that's always the case though.
At scale, it’s effectively free.