Isn’t this the opposite of what this article is saying?

I don’t think so? The article was saying there’re: traditional news behind a paywall, and free disinformation. It then goes on to argue: liberal leaning people pay for the news, while the rest read the free disinformation.

I don’t think what I said is close to the opposite of that, which would be something like “liberal leaning people consume only free disinformation” (or, idk), but I do stand by what I said. If we were still reading newspapers, I think we might be less tolerant of poor editorializing, because we expect a high quality product for our money.

The main point of higher-quality news being behind a paywall, and disinformation being more rampant in free sources implies that by having this split, it shapes the quality of people’s media diets. Pushing for more people paying for media seems to just ignore this split, don’t think that genie’s going back in the bag. It feels like without an incentive structure to encourage paid institutions release some of their content as free that the problem isn’t going to go away.