What should HN’s stance on paywalled sites be? It seems like at the very least, having an alternative link posted along with the main one that’s accessible to everyone would be a reasonable proposal.
That's the purpose of the web button - either to provide alternative links or to provide a google-filtered method to reach the page as a search referral, bypassing most paywalls.
> It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic.
> It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic.
----
> The stance and rule is that they're ok and you should not comment to complain about them. You're breaking it.
No, it's not, it's only not to complain about them. The OP asked a question (which, admittedly, could have been answered with some searching, but regardless...) and then presented what they thought was a reasonable answer to the (not actually) unanswered question.
Oh those poor innocent Hollywood studios, it's so unfair when critics just get paid to endorse movies--at least it is when those movies are getting made by your competitor. Maybe if the big studios weren't so focused on pumping out sequel after sequel after remake after lowest common denominator designed-by-commitee movies they wouldn't have to worry about this. Netflix is simply making better movies, and if these studios want their awards they're going to have to compete for them.
and still those movies would have been produced anyway, because they come with a nametag. maybe not with glorious sets and co, but with some direction. compare that to all the telenovela/80s-B-Movie-style crap, which makes up 80% of the content.
one movie. but they're not selling you one movie for ten-ish $s? They sell you a big package of crappy and less crappy TV-shows. Basically about the same as public TV here (Europe)
it has become mental for me at this point. i tend to skip anything done by netflix studios... it has to do with the rate at which they are pumping out movies, shows & documentaries. most of them are not very good.
but netflix has some of the best standup comedies ever and that sandra bullock movie wasn't too bad.
even though it's scorcese, i am not interested in irishman at all...
>Maybe if the big studios weren't so focused on pumping out sequel after sequel after remake after lowest common denominator designed-by-commitee movies they wouldn't have to worry about this.
This is a common sentiment on the internet but it seems pretty clear that regardless of what people say they like they do go see these endless sequels en masse and they're (for the most part) hugely successful.
The reason Netflix doesn't do that to the same extent probably more has to do with the fact that it's a relatively young company who simply doesn't own old IPs to remake and reboot so it's cheaper to make new things. Look at Stranger Things for instance, they seem fine milking it.
cookie cutter format means that they all conform to one of a limited number of molds.
ie, this is your teen learns about sex movie, this is your young man discover super power movie, this is your boy meets girl movie, etc.
I'm not sure if it's a fair criticism, since Netflix seems to have the same amount of variety as non-Netflix cinema has, but hey, everyone is entitled to an opinion.
It's that exactly. Every netflix exclusive has this weird formula of pandering to a target audience. Then putting a twist ending at the end of every season whether it needs one or not.
Very few netflix exclusives break out of that and when you find one that does, it just so happens they picked it up from somewhere else!
But yeah, 8/mo, hard to complain. The shows they are throwing out are still good as are the hollywood movies/shows :)
This is kinda weird for WaPo to write about considering it's pretty common for many companies to send journalists and reviewers on fancy trips. They'll often hold product launches in places like Hawaii, or recently with Jumanji they had a press event in Mexico at a nice resort. Netflix's rivals all do the same exact thing.
> The Washington Post’s policy is not to accept any material gifts from news sources or coverage subjects.
But I bet they're more than willing to accept what is essentially a free vacation on company time.
but you know what: for Jeff Bezos it doesn't work out, so there has to be something wrong...
Given that: I'm getting tired of Netflix's concept of producing a lot of crappy shows for regional markets - if I'd like to have that, I can go to my public broadcaster too for the mandatory fee I have to pay anyways... (and they also realized by now that they have to do something for non-retirees). For nice and "special" movies, buying a DVD is most often the only sensible option. Or some stream somewhere... (which are not good at special things either)
Beg to differ. Netflix has made some great local content, narcos, Dark, Casa de papel, The dutch civil war resistance miniseries, some great French comedies, and the list goes on.
I think it's great to see stuff not all coming out of Hollywood.
They also just recently released their own Thai drama series and have done a number of Korean series and films also. I think it goes further than just creating solid content but fostering more investment and talent outside of Hollywood which I think is great.
Babylon Berlin is produced by Sky and got heavy investment from public stations. The rest is certainly nice for a specific crowd, but nothing special either.
I can see a lot of non-local (but still European) stuff in Europe too, fully synchronized, in public TV, which I have to pay (...) anyways. And it's the same shallow, non-distinguishable, mass-market ready stuff like 90% of Netflix's own stuff. The only thing Netflix does better for me personally is that the setting generally seems to cater to younger people. Production quality and plot are the same as in public TV.
I really don't get people who use broadcast TV. You have to plan your life around anything you want to watch -- which is the oppostite of Netflix, which adapts to my own schedules and free time. It just seems crazy!
public broadcast TV around here has everything up for free download in 720p some time around broadcasting. So you basically only have to decide if you ever want to watch something and can grab it.
> But I bet they're more than willing to accept what is essentially a free vacation on company time.
As someone who was sent to a lot of these trips, they're not that great most of the time. I can't comment on Netflix, but it's usually a short stay at a fancy place with all the nice amenities, but the time spent travelling and listening to the sales pitches isn't worth it.
I pity the journo that would be bought that easily.
Seems to work well for journalists covering consumer products like cars and video games. I've heard of motorcycle companies holding press reviews in Nevada (which has a lot of good off-road test terrain, to be fair) and giving every magazine journalist a few hundred bucks worth of chips to play at the casino.
There are some shenanigans happening with media takedowns against “tech” and new media companies. Looks to me like a concerted effort to subvert the power they are gaining over the old media based structures. That’s got the old publishing companies. Fox should never have been allowed to merge. They should have been forced to license their catalog.
I think FB is actively harmful to the internet but all we have to do to weaken it is prevent any further acquisitions. Much of the reign them in stuff is misguided.
I don't understand the article, particularly because airline travel is the cheapest it has ever been in the history of aviation.
Is the author asserting that mutual funds are preventing air travel from being even cheaper than it already is, which is the cheapest it has ever been in the history of aviation?
This is, of course, excepting approximately six months post-9/11 and the winter holiday season post-financial crisis when the industry was on the verge of collapse and nearly every carrier operated at a loss temporarily both times just to keep people in seats. Except for that brief period in time airline travel is the cheapest it has ever been in the history of aviation.
HN needs a policy to disallow completely paywalled links.
That's akin posting a photo of a printed magazine cover and suggesting to discuss a terribly interesting article on page 17. It works only for a limited audience that comprises magazine subscribers and those willing to make a trip to the library, borrow from a friend, etc. That's counterproductive and exclusionary. It also doesn't age well.
I can just select "free" and click through to get the article. Admittedly they say that you can only access "a limited number of articles every month" but I think that's a reasonable compromise because:
- if like me you only stumble on the website through news aggregators like this one you probably won't have any issues to get to the article without paying,
- if on the other hand you read enough articles to hit the hard paywall then clearly you get something out of this particular website and it's not unreasonable for them to ask for you to pay for it IMO.
So I really think it's fine to post these types of articles on HN.
> if like me you only stumble on the website through news aggregators like this one you probably won't have any issues to get to the article without paying,
99.9% of the time I land on these sites is from a HN link. Most of the time I don’t find the first paragraph interesting enough to keep reading and close it. I get hit by those paywalls a lot.
Yes, HN should take a stand here: all links should point to the open web. I realize that there is lots of interesting content that is not on the web, and that's fine. It's just that HN links should not point to it.
We are losing the concept of the open web, and I thought HN would be the community that would understand the problem.
Sure, that's great it's written down. Doesn't mean we have to agree to the rules.
The complaints about paywalled articles are warranted, and we should take a stance about it whether the debate itself is viewed as off-topic or not. It's turned into a form of protest, at this point.
I’ve been consistently impressed with the quality of Amazon productions. Granted I don’t watch much tv or movies. So I can’t comment on the size of their library, maybe I’ve only watched the “good” ones and haven’t made it to the back catalogue.
I did wonder how two such mediocre long and boring films The Irishman & Marriage Story got such rave reviews.
I’m annoyed with myself, having been swayed by the the critics, so wasting over 5 hours of my life - watching these in the vain hope that some excitement or entertainment would emerge - thoroughly disappointed.
From what I can tell from reading the article, the established Hollywood studios are mad that Neflix upgraded the experience at their 'press junkets' which are a completely normal part of the promo cycle.
Press junkets are notorious for being rapid-fire grinds that studios consider a necessary evil. I guess the case could be made that by making it a more pleasant experience (and also granting journalists paid set visits is mentioned?) could give them an advantage among critics/voters? Probably but that's the business, just like this WaPo article was probably pitched by a competitor PR firm.
Are Critic Choice Awards comparable to Emmy awards? I always felt these were B or C tier awards. However I am not in this industry and could be completely out of touch.
To me actions like what Netflix did are nothing more than another form of marketing. You either buy what they are selling or you don't.
You'd also have to be a shitty movie reviewer to like one (of 61 films) films more because you got a free flight. And why would you put an industry professional in a shitty hotel when you fly them there? They should treat them with respect since they play a big role in the industry.
This sounds like it helps critics covering films be industry insiders with closer access to the filmmakers/actors which makes for more interesting content which they wouldn't have otherwise. Which helps them with the critiquing when it goes wrong or right.
Ensuring high quality coverage (or any coverage) for an event featuring != ensuring positive reviews
I'm really grab Netflix is disrupting the market like this. Some things (like Theatre's monopoly over new titles) are absurd and need to stop.
Wanna watch a new movie? Waiting for months or theatres are the only options. I'll be very happy the day this changes for all new titles.
78 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 122 ms ] thread> Are paywalls ok?
> It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic.
The same dev on GitHub has an equivalent for Chrome as well.
The stance and rule is that they're ok and you should not comment to complain about them. You're breaking it.
> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic.
----
> The stance and rule is that they're ok and you should not comment to complain about them. You're breaking it.
No, it's not, it's only not to complain about them. The OP asked a question (which, admittedly, could have been answered with some searching, but regardless...) and then presented what they thought was a reasonable answer to the (not actually) unanswered question.
I do think Netflix has made a lot of good (and less good) content. But that statement is simply untrue
https://oscar.go.com/news/oscar-news/best-actress-2018-franc...
but netflix has some of the best standup comedies ever and that sandra bullock movie wasn't too bad.
even though it's scorcese, i am not interested in irishman at all...
This is a common sentiment on the internet but it seems pretty clear that regardless of what people say they like they do go see these endless sequels en masse and they're (for the most part) hugely successful.
The reason Netflix doesn't do that to the same extent probably more has to do with the fact that it's a relatively young company who simply doesn't own old IPs to remake and reboot so it's cheaper to make new things. Look at Stranger Things for instance, they seem fine milking it.
ie, this is your teen learns about sex movie, this is your young man discover super power movie, this is your boy meets girl movie, etc.
I'm not sure if it's a fair criticism, since Netflix seems to have the same amount of variety as non-Netflix cinema has, but hey, everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Very few netflix exclusives break out of that and when you find one that does, it just so happens they picked it up from somewhere else!
But yeah, 8/mo, hard to complain. The shows they are throwing out are still good as are the hollywood movies/shows :)
> The Washington Post’s policy is not to accept any material gifts from news sources or coverage subjects.
But I bet they're more than willing to accept what is essentially a free vacation on company time.
Given that: I'm getting tired of Netflix's concept of producing a lot of crappy shows for regional markets - if I'd like to have that, I can go to my public broadcaster too for the mandatory fee I have to pay anyways... (and they also realized by now that they have to do something for non-retirees). For nice and "special" movies, buying a DVD is most often the only sensible option. Or some stream somewhere... (which are not good at special things either)
I think it's great to see stuff not all coming out of Hollywood.
It’s called “the resistance banker”
As someone who was sent to a lot of these trips, they're not that great most of the time. I can't comment on Netflix, but it's usually a short stay at a fancy place with all the nice amenities, but the time spent travelling and listening to the sales pitches isn't worth it.
I pity the journo that would be bought that easily.
I think FB is actively harmful to the internet but all we have to do to weaken it is prevent any further acquisitions. Much of the reign them in stuff is misguided.
Mutual funds appear faceless and have an effect, knowing the owner must have much more.
Is the author asserting that mutual funds are preventing air travel from being even cheaper than it already is, which is the cheapest it has ever been in the history of aviation?
This is, of course, excepting approximately six months post-9/11 and the winter holiday season post-financial crisis when the industry was on the verge of collapse and nearly every carrier operated at a loss temporarily both times just to keep people in seats. Except for that brief period in time airline travel is the cheapest it has ever been in the history of aviation.
My wife won the Netflix PR account for our market for the agency she worked for.
They moved into their office and built an elaborate viewing room — and their retainer came in at multiples of other high end clients.
And yeah, constant trips for entertainment journos.
One of the more aggressive and savvy companies when it comes to PR. In my experience that signals strong management.
HN needs a policy to disallow completely paywalled links.
That's akin posting a photo of a printed magazine cover and suggesting to discuss a terribly interesting article on page 17. It works only for a limited audience that comprises magazine subscribers and those willing to make a trip to the library, borrow from a friend, etc. That's counterproductive and exclusionary. It also doesn't age well.
- if like me you only stumble on the website through news aggregators like this one you probably won't have any issues to get to the article without paying,
- if on the other hand you read enough articles to hit the hard paywall then clearly you get something out of this particular website and it's not unreasonable for them to ask for you to pay for it IMO.
So I really think it's fine to post these types of articles on HN.
99.9% of the time I land on these sites is from a HN link. Most of the time I don’t find the first paragraph interesting enough to keep reading and close it. I get hit by those paywalls a lot.
We are losing the concept of the open web, and I thought HN would be the community that would understand the problem.
The complaints about paywalled articles are warranted, and we should take a stance about it whether the debate itself is viewed as off-topic or not. It's turned into a form of protest, at this point.
(paywall)
Press junkets are notorious for being rapid-fire grinds that studios consider a necessary evil. I guess the case could be made that by making it a more pleasant experience (and also granting journalists paid set visits is mentioned?) could give them an advantage among critics/voters? Probably but that's the business, just like this WaPo article was probably pitched by a competitor PR firm.
To me actions like what Netflix did are nothing more than another form of marketing. You either buy what they are selling or you don't.
This sounds like it helps critics covering films be industry insiders with closer access to the filmmakers/actors which makes for more interesting content which they wouldn't have otherwise. Which helps them with the critiquing when it goes wrong or right.
Ensuring high quality coverage (or any coverage) for an event featuring != ensuring positive reviews