Discuss this change here!

This announcement will be deleted within one week.

  • Zoutpeper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    That would disqualify a lot of the better quality sources and promote low quality clickbait.

    I’d much prefer either a paywall bypass, such as archive, in the body or comments. Alternatively a copy of the full text / high quality summary needs to be provided. The rules as provided would for instance disqualify reuters and several investigative journalist papers.

    I also think posters who use a non standard source (ie not the well known reuters/ap/bbc/cnn/aljazeera etc) should mention in the text the reach and slant of the source.

    • goat@sh.itjust.worksOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I also think posters who use a non standard source (ie not the well known reuters/ap/bbc/cnn/aljazeera etc) should mention in the text the reach and slant of the source.

      Eventually I plan on introducing a bot to do this automatically.

    • lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I agree. I hate clicking on something only to find it’s behind a paywall but someone usually summarizes or provides the entire article in the comments. At least that way you have access to information coming out of those high quality subscription sources, instead of getting all our news off free sites with a clickbait title and 2 sentences with grammatical errors for the body.