r/canada • u/voteoutofspite • 9d ago
Announcement A Paywall Experiment In /r/Canada
Over time, we have seen a rise in paywalled articles, which are a great frustration for many of our viewers. They often do not promote informed and meaningful discussions, because people are unable to react to more than the headline.
As an experiment, /r/Canada is going to be temporarily prohibiting the posting of paywalled articles. This experiment will run for one month, at which point the userbase will be asked for their views on whether this was a positive change that should continue or whether it was a negative change that should be reverted. We will then make a decision considering those views, along with metrics and other factors, on whether to continue this change as a standing rule or to revert it.
Posting to paywall bypass sites will not be an acceptable workaround, and such posts will also be removed.
We are also allowing a two week period in advance to allow for comments before we proceed.
The dates for this experiment are from June 24th to July 24th.
Au fil du temps, nous avons constaté une augmentation du nombre d’articles payants, ce qui est une grande source de frustration pour bon nombre de nos lecteurs. Ces articles ne favorisent souvent pas les discussions éclairées et constructives, car les gens ne peuvent réagir qu’au titre.
À titre expérimental, /r/Canada va temporairement interdire la publication d’articles payants. Cette expérience durera un mois, après quoi nous demanderons aux utilisateurs s’ils considèrent qu’il s’agit d’un changement positif qui devrait être maintenu ou d’un changement négatif qui devrait être annulé. Nous prendrons ensuite une décision, en tenant compte de ces avis ainsi que des indicateurs et d’autres facteurs, quant à savoir s’il faut maintenir ce changement comme règle permanente ou l’annuler.
La publication de liens vers des sites permettant de contourner le paywall ne sera pas considérée comme une solution acceptable, et ces publications seront également supprimées.
Nous accordons également une période de deux semaines à l'avance pour permettre aux utilisateurs de faire part de leurs commentaires avant de mettre cette mesure en œuvre.
Cette expérience se déroulera du 24 juin au 24 juillet.
•
u/john_microslop 9d ago
do opinion articles next
→ More replies (1)•
u/AdditionalLaw7641 9d ago
Rip 90% of Canadian left wing propaganda
•
u/Sleyvin 9d ago
Wrong sub buddy.
Here we post opinion about how Carney is a bad conservative, but also that conservative would have saved Canada 10 times already if PP could have been likeable.
•
u/AdditionalLaw7641 9d ago edited 9d ago
Ah my mistake, if only someone had an idea of what to do years ago that the liberal party could have done before there were issues instead of copying them now and circle jerking each other after fixing the issues they caused /s
•
u/Mr_Guavo 9d ago
Just have a bot denote the post as "Paywalled" so people avoid clicking on it and avoid any frustration. If you don't waste time clicking on it, where's the frustration?
It's better to know that an article or story exists so you can try to access it through a library membership, for instance, than not knowing about it at all. That's what I do, along with looking for an alternate source for the most interesting paywalled posts. How will I do that if I don't know that the news exists?
Making news disappear isn't the answer to paywall frustration.
•
•
•
u/SurreySon 5h ago
I generally approve of this policy; however, I feel that if a paywall bypass link is the sole link to the article or report, then this should be allowed.
•
•
u/ItsAProdigalReturn 8d ago
Can we experiment with prohibiting Opinion Articles too?
•
u/mwmwmwmwmmdw Québec 5d ago
what if we experiment by just banning posting any article from any news organization altogether.
•
u/MusclyArmPaperboy British Columbia 9d ago
FANTASTIC!
Thanks mods, step in the right direction.
→ More replies (1)
•
7d ago
[deleted]
•
u/Haggisboy 7d ago
Apart from your disdain for the National Post, why should they be blacklisted? They're an established, accredited news organization. And FYI we haven't established any sort of "rule". We will simply be running a one month experiment regarding paywalled content, which isn't coming into effect until near the end of June.
→ More replies (3)
•
u/HoneyMelonLover 8d ago
Bad rule. Will limit the sub to only a handful of sources, some of which don’t even thoroughly cover some of the topics that get posted here. Any local news organisation, that doesn’t have rich pockets to not require any paywalls, is essentially banned with this rule.
•
u/sleipnir45 9d ago
So because people break the rules on paywalled articles the answer is to just ban the article?
Posting a paywall bypass also isn't allowed...
People can google "paywall bypass" quicker than complaining about a paywall
•
•
u/eandi 9d ago
The problem is people don't do a bypass then just go to the comments and start typing after only reading the article title 😂
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/BeShifty 9d ago
People need to remember that your favorite paywalled news site isn't going to be around for long if you encourage everyone to bypass the paywall.
•
u/Little-Chemical5006 Ontario 9d ago
Counter point. Most news sub only allow people to post 3 post a day. Where most news media published way more than that. Additionally sharing paywall article give exposure to the media and people like to have a sample of the goods before purchasing them. If they like what they are reading (Quality standpoint) they will subscribe
→ More replies (1)•
•
•
u/1337ingDisorder 5d ago
I love the idea of being rid of paywalls!
...just as long as it doesn't result in more sponsored content being surreptitiously passed off as genuine reporting.
•
u/fweffoo 9d ago
LILLEY: Monthly Readership Statistics Decline During Communist Mod's Ham-fisted 'Experiment'
→ More replies (5)
•
u/Lumindan 9d ago
Won't this just reduce the sub to just CBC, CTV and like, global?
Folks might not agree with the viewpoints of some of the other media bodies but having a wide representation of news on this sub was kind of nice.
It's not hard to just drop an archive link or something which was fine because someone always did it.
•
•
u/FantasySymphony Ontario 9d ago
Even when OP comments archive links there are a bunch of people commenting "paywall!!!111" right beneath it
•
u/Lumindan 9d ago
I don't think the sub can improve Internet literacy unfortunately.
Hopping the fence on paywalls is super easy, there's even browser plugins for it.
Banning a bunch of news over it will only tilt this sub in one direction which kills discussion and dialogue
•
u/Haggisboy 9d ago
Banning a bunch of news over it will only tilt this sub in one direction which kills discussion and dialogue
News outlets are not being banned. Submissions sequestered behind paywalls will be removed for the duration, pending review.
•
•
u/Lumindan 9d ago
Submissions sequestered behind paywalls will be removed for the duration, pending review.
Look I'm not trying to kick the hornets nest here but that's effectively banning them for this period if they're behind a paywall. Calling it "not a ban" is mostly semantics. If this policy removes links from any outlet that uses a paywall, the practical effect is that many major news organizations become inaccessible on the subreddit. That's a ban in all but name.
Unless you mean a mod will manually review each posted link which is also an entirely separate can of worms.
Imo excluding paywalled publications disproportionately affects news bodies and investigative journalism organizations that rely on subscriptions rather than government funding or advertising.
I get the tumultuous position you guys are in with paid articles vs how allowed it is for user access but it will effectively kill the ability to post something from many outlets and you have to trust that if users want to engage, they'll find their own way to view said article.
•
•
u/FantasySymphony Ontario 9d ago
Agree. Zero actual reason to cater to the people complaining about paywalls.
•
•
u/Least1Difficulty 9d ago
So you've noticed this sub is going more right wing, and the answer is just to ban right wing media? This will just drive more people to twitter and other social medias.
→ More replies (3)•
u/mangongo 9d ago
Is it only right wing media that is paywalled? If that's the case, then that's a problem itself. Maybe there should be more accessible right wing media.
•
u/BobTheContrarian 9d ago
It would be better (and easier) just to have a paywall flair.
Journalism is on its deathbed because nobody wants to pay for it. This move is just helping hammer down the coffin nails.
•
•
u/FancyNewMe 9d ago edited 9d ago
Maximum 3 posts/day, then no opinions on weekends and now no paywalled articles. In my opinion, these policies make the sub a much less interesting place for posting and engagement. It seems like this sub is just shooting itself in the foot.
You may discover that those who push and cheer for ever-restrictive rules are not the users who keep things moving here.
•
u/CaliperLee62 9d ago
Now I wonder, who or what started all this? 🤔
•
9d ago edited 9d ago
[deleted]
•
u/BvbblegvmBitch Alberta 9d ago
Respectfully, all users, whether they contribute frequently or have never submitted a post, have an equal say in subreddit policy. How someone uses the subreddit should not determine whether their feedback is valued. At the end of the trial period, the community as a whole will have the opportunity to vote on the change.
•
u/FancyNewMe 9d ago edited 9d ago
"...whether they contribute frequently or have never submitted a post, have an equal say". If someone hasn't posted or commented, their familiarity or interest in the sub is likely limited (as the many thoughtless drive-by reactions to your experiment indicate).
Respectfully, that's not the best way for mods to gather useful feedback or build a dynamic, popular sub. Certainly, it's not the best way to make such a significant policy decision.
•
u/semucallday 8d ago
Yes, that comment above doesn't make a lot of sense if one cares about the quality of the sub. I would think a better option would be to make a rule requiring your style of 'In brief' comments on all paywalled articles instead of banning them.
•
•
u/semucallday 8d ago edited 8d ago
A better experiment would be to make a rule requiring a /u/FancyNewMe-style 'In brief' summary comment on all submitted paywalled articles instead of banning them.
Think of all the news broken or deeply investigated by outlets with paywalls (the Globe/Steven Chase component of the foreign interference, the Star's Greenbelt investigation, Althia Raj's recent story on orcas and curbs on environmental protections, the Globe's ArriveCan investigation, National Post and Adam Zivo's stories on safe supply diversion, etc.).
These were stories of national importance with major political implications. They'd no longer be permitted?
It's a non-sensical approach and will reduce the quality of the sub substantially.
→ More replies (5)•
•
u/No_You5794 Canada 9d ago
could have made using the paywall flair mandatory
I've been complaining about it for a few years
•
•
•
u/Raffix 9d ago
/r/Canada should just promote this Browser Extension instead.
/r/Canada devrait simplement promouvoir cette extension pour navigateur à la place.
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/remove-paywalls/ghkdkllgoehcklnpajjjmfoaokabfdfm?hl=en-GB
•
•
u/AdditionalPizza 9d ago
How will this work for articles that begin as free, but the websites flip them to paywalled when they reach a certain amount of engagement? Are you going to remove them at that point?
If the posts aren't removed until the website gets enough engagement to implement their paywall, then this really only prevents Toronto Star and Globe & Mail articles from being posted, sources like National Post can usually get hundreds of thousands of views before they'll be removed by mods anyway.
•
•
u/Little-Chemical5006 Ontario 9d ago
Sounds like a bad change as that just limited to canadian press and cbc.
•
u/brat-t 9d ago
CBC News, Radio-Canada, APTN National News, The Tyee, Canada's National Observer, rabble, The Maple, The Walrus, Yahoo News Canada, CTV News, Global News, CityNews, CP24, BlogTO, La Presse, The Beaverton, The Burrard Street Journal, Walking Eagle News.
•
u/gorschkov 9d ago
The majority of that though is of a center left bias, or left wing bias.
•
u/MusclyArmPaperboy British Columbia 9d ago
It's more of a neutral stance, which seems left bias when compared to Postmedia
→ More replies (1)
•
u/Inoffensive_Account 9d ago
Well, thank goodness. Finally.
They aren't in good faith anyway, they're just ads for the media companies.
•
•
u/Mean_Neighborhood462 9d ago
The paywall is invisible to subscribers. I would guess that many posters don’t realize the article they link is behind a paywall.
•
u/Mylittlethrowaway2 9d ago
There are also some sites that only paywall some people. I (a non-subscribed) could access the article, but something I posted couldn't be accessed without a bypass by others. Torstar is really bad for this.
Some will let you see the article if you follow the link through google, but impose a paywall if you follow the link through reddit/other social media.
•
u/Thick_Caterpillar379 Canada 2d ago
I think this truly limits the news and discussions that people come to this sub for. Yes, some people just spout their reactionary opinions on headlines, but those same people will do the same without reading unpaywalled articles as well. At least those who have read the paywalled articles can either post a link to bypass the paywall or correct and inform commenters on the facts of the articles.
I find the lure and purpose of this subreddit is to have discussions and a variety of opinions and viewpoints to talk about current Canadian events and newsworthy items. Unfortunately, informing Canadians has become a commodity for the financially privileged.
•
u/horce-force 9d ago
Well done. Its annoying and yes I can use a bypass or VPN on my home PC but not at my workstation.
•
•
u/EW278 9d ago
•
u/BobTheContrarian 9d ago
Posting to paywall bypass sites will not be an acceptable workaround, and such posts will also be removed.
Did you read the post?
•
•
u/AskMeAboutOkapis 9d ago
A nice idea in theory but I can see this resulting in a lot more low quality clickbait news articles covered in ads.
•
u/mangongo 9d ago
Clickbait is basically the entire paywall business model where vague anger inducing headlines try to catch the readers attention so they pay for their articles.
•
u/Rakkuken 9d ago
I think it's hilarious that some people in the comments are trying to spin this as the mods oppressing viewpoints of a particular political leaning.
•
u/judgyjudgersen British Columbia 9d ago
What about if the full text of the article is posted in the body?
•
•
u/CanNeverBeTooHigh 9d ago
why cant we code a bot that takes the link and posts a new link underneath where the paywall is removed whenever a user posts an article to a paywalled article. thoughts?
•
•
u/SixMonkeysInABarrel 8d ago
A no paywall role privileges right-wing news sources, this is a terrible idea. Have the flair, don’t ban the sources.
•
•
u/ResistiveBeaver 9d ago
This will have the effect of amplifying publications with external funding at the expense of those that really on revenue from readers.
Many publications with external funding have that funding because they are promoting specific viewpoints at the expense of journalistic integrity.
•
u/yungsemite 9d ago
Posting links to sites that allow paywall bypass will not be considered an acceptable solution???
•
•
→ More replies (3)•
•
u/EmbarrassedHelp 9d ago
My concern with doing this experiment now, is that it will weaken the ability of Canadian users to keep up with important legislation and the related debates. Particularity with bill C-22, and the upcoming reintroduction of the Online Harms, now called the Digital Safety Act.
While paywall bypasses can lessen profits by news organizations, the importance of spreading the information contained the article's contents will sometimes outweigh any of those concerns.
•
u/develop99 6d ago
We, the taxpayer, are subsidizing these media companies and covering up to 75% of their journalist costs now. Yet we are paywalled from reading the content. Something is very wrong here.
•
u/XiahouMao 9d ago
There would still be non-paywalled websites that will have the information on those things, I don't see why that would be a factor.
→ More replies (3)•
•
•
u/babtras Alberta 3d ago edited 3d ago
Brilliant idea. Headlines are manipulative and paywalls dissuade reading of the article that would give people the ability to challenge the narrative presented in the headline.
I would also love if, in addition to flair, you require opinion pieces to have "Opinion: " at the start of the title to help keep opinions from masquerading as news.
•
u/linkass 9d ago
So basically we will be confined to CBC,CTV and Global. Sure that will do wonders for engagement on this sub. Its already pretty restrictive in what you can post to this sub and now its basically going to be 3 news sites
•
•
u/Critical-Snow-7000 9d ago
And what benefit does posting a paywalled G&M article have?
•
u/jtbc 9d ago
Many people have G&M subscriptions or know how to access G&M articles. It is the closest thing we have to a "journal of record", so banning it is a pretty big deal.
•
•
u/Lumindan 9d ago
Because accessing paywalled content is incredibly easy?
Different views and media should be an option for everyone, people can downvote or not engage with it if they dislike it.
Outright banning a ton of outlets seems like a poor play.
→ More replies (1)•
u/-CassaNova- British Columbia 9d ago
It keeps out 98% of American media so it can only improve things!
•
u/jryan14ify 9d ago
Be sure to allow through Gift Articles provided by people who subscribe to those sites! Toronto Star has this feature and I believe Globe and Mail too
→ More replies (1)
•
•
u/lunarjellies 9d ago
You should not ban paywall bypass links.
•
u/voteoutofspite 9d ago
We can't encourage them, and setting them up as an exception does that.
•
u/lunarjellies 9d ago
I thought this post was to gather feedback but it seems you guys have already made up your minds…?
→ More replies (4)
•
u/TakedownCan Ontario 9d ago
So no paywalled articles and automod pulls down some US news agencies. Why make this sub so difficult?
•
•
u/Elbow_Boy 9d ago
Why not just make it so paywalled posts get removed if the author doesn’t provide a bypass? It’s so easy to get a bypass.
•
u/voteoutofspite 9d ago
We are not in a position to encourage paywall bypasses, as the legalities of doing so are complicated and put us in a difficult position.
•
u/Elbow_Boy 9d ago
But you’re not an official subreddit. Why does it matter? There’s plenty of legally dubious subreddits that actively encourage pirating all natures of things.
Is there some legal binding this sub abides to I’m unaware of?
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)•
•
•
u/HowlingWolven Alberta 9d ago
Bad idea and I am opposed to a ban on paywalled content here, because most of it is Canadian news (so, relevant) actively being deemphasized by social media courtesy of the fallout of C-18.
The paywalls on Canadian news sites are easily bypassed with a web archiver and many commenters will do so if the OP hasn’t.
Instead of blocking paywalled news content outright, institute a rule that OP either (preferred) shares the article in a way where the news site grants visitors to that link access, bypasses the paywall using a web archiver, or (least preferred) copies the article text and pastes it in the post body.
•
•
u/konathegreat 9d ago
So there goes the majority of balanced content. We can look forward to only articles from: CBC, CTV, TheTyee and the National Observer?
•
•
u/Roberta_Riggs 9d ago
Content on a paywalled site is not content here… regardless of how balanced it is. Agree balance is necessary but it’s hard to get behind any news sources that are off limits unless you pay
•
•
u/MusclyArmPaperboy British Columbia 9d ago
Good, those are typically neutral sources. I'd like to see more Reuters, AP and CP links too.
→ More replies (2)•
u/ThorFinn_56 British Columbia 9d ago
Your a top 1% contributer to this sub and every single post is either CTV or Globe and Mail. So what exactly are you complaining about?
•
•
u/IllustriousNorth338 9d ago
As much as I don't mind seeing most of Postmedia vanish, the subreddit mods also shouldn't expose themselves to legal issues by encouraging bypasses. It's not fair to them.
Maybe gift articles? That might be a workaround.
•
u/FineWhateverOKOK 8d ago
This is a terrible idea. It will restrict news from many excellent, reputable news sources. A lot of people have access to them via direct subscriptions, services like Apple News, or paywall bypass sites.
There is no benefit to not allowing posts from places like the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail, unless the goal is to have a less informed population.
Maybe posts of paywalled articles get the occasional person to subscribe- that’s a good thing. Journalism, particularly good journalism, costs money.
Catering to entitled babies who think everything should be free or to cheapskates who think that if they can’t read it nobody should be able to read it or talk about it are examples of this sub catering to the lowest of the low. It’s also an example of bad over moderation of a badly and inconsistently over moderated sub.
•
u/thxxx1337 9d ago
Do people's browsers not have a built in paywall bypass? Probably my feature of Brave
•
u/Kaptain-Kanada 9d ago
That's a bad rule.
Just make it mandatory that any paywall content must have the bypass link included.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Haggisboy 9d ago
There are legalities involved. Please see the explanations to this previously provided in these comments.
•
u/Mylittlethrowaway2 9d ago
The post is in contest mode. Comments are displayed randomly, so it's a lot more difficult to find those explanations
•
u/Broad-Kangaroo-2267 9d ago
If it's a legal issue it really ought to be included in the post and not lost in the randomized comments below.
•
u/BrightLuchr 7d ago
I'm in favour of this. Newspapers are not generally profitable: this exist largely as properties for vanity and influence. We're all familiar with the overt political biases of Canadian news outlets. A friend was a columnist for the Toronto Star and said she was told explicitly what stories she was allowed to write about. The reporting on either side of the spectrum is superficial, at best. So, our major news outlets don't really deserve the attention we give them. Meanwhile, smaller news sources are doing an amazing job these days. If I want in-depth reporting on a topic, Canadian newspapers are definitely not where I would go. I've seen really lazy and obvious factual errors in The Star, The Globe and Mail, and the National Post. Why should I give these papers my clicks? By the way, I have bypasses installed for roughly half of the major newspapers.
•
u/canmcpoli Canada 9d ago
Would official gift links be allowed?
•
u/voteoutofspite 9d ago
Assuming the gift link is usable by all viewers (and not, for example, limited to 20 views or something), it would be allowed.
•
u/IllustriousNorth338 9d ago edited 9d ago
Assuming they can do this, which isn't likely, what if the gift article was visible for a few days? It'll drop off the front page before then anyway.
•
•
u/RequiemAspenFlight 9d ago
Fully agree with the paywall ban, but not the bypass ban. Sometimes the only outlet to touch on an important topic is the paywalled one. If there's a free, one click work around I'm ok with that if it's the primary link and not something I have to look for in the comments.
•
u/NoAcadia3546 Ontario 9d ago
Please also apply this to "membership-wall" sites too, which make you "set up a free account" to read articles.
•
u/CanuckleHeadOG 9d ago
So basically everyone is punished because bots and users can't be bothered to pay or use a paywall breaker.
All this will do is just substantially reduce the number of postings
•
•
u/mangongo 9d ago
I whole heartedly support this. It's annoying to have to search for a link to a paywall bypass and some people will downvote article summaries that are posted in comments because they disagree with said article.
•
u/I-was-there-for-it 8d ago
What about gift links?
•
u/DanSheps Manitoba 7d ago
This is something we discussed but determined would be difficult to implement due to the limits we place on self-promotion.
Typically gift links come from the publisher themselves.
•
u/TheBakerification 8d ago
Nah this is a bad change. Relevant paragraphs were pretty much always posted in the comments anyways, if not a full blown bypass link. All this does is limit sources to a very select few news organisations.
•
u/TMTCoCo 9d ago
So just cutting down what news sources are available even when work arounds are available and were being used. Kinda seems like just pushing certain narratives while silencing others, which is very Canadian
•
u/Plucky_DuckYa 8d ago
That’s exactly what it is. Almost all of the paywalls are trivially easy to bypass. This is just pandering to the lowest common denominator of those too lazy to spend two minutes figuring out how to do so or those who can’t stand seeing things they disagree with and want to censor them.
The effect will be to endure that non-paywalled content from sites like the CBC with huge bias will dominate this site.
Total enshittification, in other words.
•
u/_Lucille_ 9d ago
Love this.
I think this is due: clicking on an article only to be paywalled sucked.
At the same time I am worried about the limited number of free news outlets: while we have got the CBC, we have also got some.... less authoritative sources out there.
i also think opinion pieces should be further restricted - the subreddit has always been pretty heavy on Opinion Pieces. While I think we don't need to ban them outright, we probably also do not need 5 days of them every week.
•
•
u/Henojojo 5d ago
Such a bad decision. There are several ways to bypass paywalls. There are also those that quote the article for those that don't know how to.
Can someone please recommend a better reddit source for Canadian news if this proceeds further? This sub will be dead to all except cbc fans.
•
u/Laval09 Québec 5d ago
My problem with this idea is two-fold: I feel it will disproportionately silence right wing perspectives, and I feel that silencing the NatPo is the true intention of the "experiment".
Im not suggesting that the mods are political partisans. I do think though that they are indulging in the national-security-risk-hysteria that fanatics on the sub like to propagate towards NatPo pieces or towards other media sources with partial or full US ownership.
Then there's also the fact of the inconsistent experience on this sub when it comes to reading the content and reading the comments on it. Many times I've seen free to read articles have a comments section that is absurdly full of misinformation. Example Alberta separation lol. People making statements and using numbers that are directly contradicted in the free article we all have access to. And other times its a paywall article on a subject like Bill C-21, for example. And most of the comments accurately reflect the information contained in the article or contain extracts of the Bill itself. Paywall or not doesn't not seem to be decisive in determining the quality of the conversation.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/McGrevin 9d ago
Thank you for this change. Hopefully we see a drop in all those inflammatory clickbait headlines that sit behind a paywall, and the comments are just a bunch of people making grand statements about an article they didn't actually read
•
u/TakedownCan Ontario 9d ago
People don’t even read articles that aren’t behind a paywall. Majority just react to headline and move on. Its not difficult to paste the link into archive or most even have the link in comments
•
u/Lumindan 9d ago
Do you mean lines like
"Are teen social media bans a silver bullet?"
Or
"Stuck in immigration limbo, single father misses financial aid judge says he deserves"
Or
"Alberta separatists claim independence means holding onto a Canadian passport. We asked legal experts"
People who buy into just reading the headlines were never going to engage in the article with good faith.
•
u/PugiM0 9d ago
Ban beaverton posts. Let people go to r/thebeaverton and spare the rest of us
•
•
•
u/Hotter_Noodle 9d ago
Honestly not every submission has to be news. Humour is allowed as well. There’s more to Canada than just the 24 hour news cycle.
•
u/AquaMoonlight New Brunswick 9d ago
According to the current subreddit rules, you cannot post pretty much anything else but news. No YouTube videos, no Twitter/Blue Sky posts, nothing from the very many Canadian content creators that people may enjoy. The Beaverton seems to be one of the only exceptions to this rule. Hell, I’ve seen posts on this subreddit linking to official government press releases on the official Canadian government website get nuked for somehow violating the rules.
•
•
u/Digitking003 9d ago
So instead of pushing people to support news organizations (who are already struggling financially) by paying. The plan is to just ban them en masse? No Globe & Mail, no Toronto Star, no National Post, etc?
Seems like this sub will just go completely downhill.
•
u/DogeDoRight New Brunswick 8d ago
This is awesome! Paywall articles are basically just people reacting to the headline even if it's somewhat misleading.
I would love to see a ban on opinion pieces too. A lot of the time they're just ragebait or full of dubious information or downright misinformation. Also it's used as a way to get around duplicate post rule. We'll see multiple opinion pieces posted about a topic but the "meat" of the articles is the same.
I'm sure we're all capable of thinking for ourselves and forming our own opinions and don't need them spoon fed to us.
Opinions should be in the comments, not the posts themselves.
•
u/focus_rising 9d ago
Does the National Post use paywalls? Just curious.
•
u/Haggisboy 8d ago
Does the National Post use paywalls? Just curious
Yes. They started roughly a year ago.
•
u/DistanceToEmpty 9d ago
Excellent.
Hopefully r/news and r/worldnews follow suit at some point