• ieatpwns@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    Information should be free. Putting it behind a paywall makes it so the less fortunate suffer by being kept out of the loop.

    • SayCyberOnceMore@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      17 days ago

      Information is free, it’s the transmission medium (paper printing or webservers) and the journalist’s wages that you should pay for.

      • Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        17 days ago

        That doesn’t really address their point, that’s simply a motte and bailey. Limiting access to information (knowledge/education) on a basis of payment is a hindrance of lower classes not upper classes. We especially see this with academic publishing and the people writing those papers aren’t even paid for it usually.

        You shouldn’t have to pay for the journalist or the transmission, similarly to education it is best for a society (especially a democracy) if information is freely accessible regardless of one’s finances.

          • Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            17 days ago

            I’m not in academia, but I’m pretty sure research papers are usually part of the job for many professors, and they are paid for those jobs. Research students get stipends (money) to live off of while doing research and publishing their work. So, money is supporting those efforts as well, right?

            You don’t get paid for your research papers being published, it’s required in may fields but it isn’t something you get paid for. Stipends are not money to live off, in most cases you barely get by. So no, money is not supporting those efforts, it’s literally corporations taking the labor of researchers and making money off it.

            I’m not in support of having to pay for quality information being the way, but it is the way right now. There are people that refuse to pay for journalism, some saying because it restricts access to quality information to those that can’t afford it, but I posit boycotting paying for journalism is having a net negative effect on quality information getting into anyone’s hands, including those that don’t have the means to pay for it.

            Who are you shadowboxing here? I’m simply agreeing that information SHOULD be free and you clearly agree.

    • dick_stitches@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      17 days ago

      I don’t know about you, but I don’t live in a utopia that works like this. Journalists have wages, web servers cost a lot of money to run. Printing presses and physical distribution channels also cost a lot of money. If information should be free, how should publishers pay for all of these labor and infrastructure costs?

      • ieatpwns@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        17 days ago

        Everything you said is true and I never implied it wasn’t I was just saying that information should be free. If I had an idea on how to make it work I’d be working on it