I think that argument is begging the question.

Media consumption habits changed because that's how the internet was foisted on people - not necesarily because anybody made a choice or were asked what their preferences were.

After 30 years on the internet, I've gone full circle. I don't want (and won't) pay per article. 99% of the news articles I read come from a handful of trusted websites (a couple of major news outlets, a couple of local news outlets, etc.) and I don't have any problem subscribing to them. There's too much garbage on the internet, and I want the gatekeeping.

I guess that puts sites like HN in an awkward position, though. Some of the content posted here is interesting, but rarely enough that I would pay to read it on some random site. If it's important enough, it'll show up on one of the news sites I pay for.

I don't subscribe (with payment) even to websites I trust for their content because I don't trust them for how they track users, and how users are (or could be) tracked everywhere by payment processors via those subscriptions.

Subscribing to a public library where diversity of content is guaranteed but tracking is not per user is fine.

I've gone full circle and not even internet content, I now subscribe to a few physical magazine and enjoy the act of reading them on paper, it's a very different experience than on a screen.

Similarly to my journey through ebooks back when Kindle launched, got very into it for a while but got tired of not being able to share interesting reads with friends, ended up buying physical copies of ebooks I really liked, and in the end just ditched ebooks to have only physical books on my bookshelves.

Which leaves me in this weird position on the internet, I would like to pay for some of the articles I read from publications I respect but have no need nor will to subscribe to online.