Just because this site isn’t directly paying the content providers now doesn’t mean they won’t in the future. Providing it free, even with ambiguous legality, can allow them to build enough of a following to give them leverage in future negotiations.
I don't see how this is different from disputing the banking sector by conducting a heist.
Let's leave aside this logical fallacy; we're all adults here.
Buying music on iTunes became popular because it was easier than pirating the music. You could buy individual songs for less than 99 cents (you still can do that [1])
News outlets have the option of selling content by the piece (as you suggest) instead of forcing you to go into a monthly or annual subscription you don't need because you just want to read 1 or 2 articles per month from a particular newspaper.
However, they don't want to do so. And because of that, pirating the content becomes again more convenient; like in the pre-iTunes years.
Your idea of using an intermediary service to get that content isn't the solution. I'm not interested in a third party profiling me based on the content I read online.
Edited to add reference: [1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/109338
Also, I assume you read stuff on Substack, Medium, Reddit, etc. Definitely so on a third party commonly known as HN.
Re iTunes: it's not about the will of the news outlets. It is impractical for them to offer a model which sells by the piece. And the most prominent cause is banal: payment fees are too high a percentage on what would be a typical price for a single piece of content.
Keeping a credit balance solves that, but keeping a credit balance at every outlet is just as bad as monthly subs.
An aggregator can solve this issue.
If you look at the middle part of the domain between news. and .com, it might remind you that this is a community of people building stuff, learning to sell it, improving upon the feedback.
I don't really see how pitching a legal solution in a thread below the pitch of an obviously illegal, or at least unethical one is problematic.
Paywallskip seems to stealsy to me FWIW.
No, you throw it away, and probably won't buy it again. If you don't like NYT, don't buy from them.
If NYT is like an avocado for you, sometimes ripe and delicious, sometimes unripe, sometimes rotten, you get to decide how often you're gonna buy avocados, or if you'll develop your own methods of avocado testing before buying to increase your odds. In no case do you get to take the avocado skin back to the store asking for a refund.
If the content is untruthful, it isn't in analogy with a fruit that you don't like, it's in analogy with a rotten fruit.
I expect a refund if a rotten fruit is delivered.
Really hard to implement with content.
If it says super crunchy and you assess the crunchiness is merely average, well, that's your perception.
But if it says it's paprika flavoured and it turns out to be sauerkraut, you gotta bring it back to the store.
I'm also frustrated by how paywalls work, having to endlessly subscribe to yet another newspaper or newsletter, just because you want to read one article.
But this approach is... stealing. When it comes to big media like the NYT, it might not feel like it is, but at the end of the day, it's people doing the background research, writing the content, editing, etc.
This is _not_ the solution.
Our alternative in the making offers a legal, fair alternative: buy and sell content by the piece.
It's available at https://vernus.one
If you have a blog or newsletter, or if you're a journalist, I'm happy to help in setting up your publication and start earning in a transparent manner.