So one of the blog websites I most frequently visit, Andrew Sullivan's Dish, is apparently implementing some kind of "leaky paywall" and is hoping readers will pay for content. As I've stated before, I'm not opposed to paying for content, but most implementations of pay-for-content tend to piss me off, not because they're requesting money but because they do so in a pestering or technically inefficient way that requires things like memorizing new passwords and logging on every time I go to the website from a new computer (and my computer is always "new," because I abhor cookies on my browsers), not to mention the dumb-ass implementations of IP-address-based paywall and metering schemes that more often than not get broken by the very existence of such bizarre internet arcana as an oh-my-god-it's-South-Korean (!) IP address – such as mine. It is for reasons such as this that I not only ceased to be a regular reader of all the major US newpaper websites (first WaPo, then NYT, and most recently LA Times all broke my access and thus my heart), but in fact essentially boycott them, normally quickly clicking away from even "free content" on their allegedly leaky-paywalled websites when I should happen to naively land on such.
I pay a monthly "membership" for NPR – which is most definitely pay-for-content – but their website and streaming services are technically easy to access and still de facto free, and the feeling I get as a "voluntary" payer-for-content feels more in line with the open-source spirit behind my particular conception of how the web should be. Another example of a "volunteer" website model is the "donate" button some blogs put up: The League of Ordinary Gentlemen and Brain Pickings are examples of this, where I've come very close to donating and may do so in the future.
I will be conflicted if I pay for Sullivan's blog. On the one hand, I do, in fact, derive value from it – even though I don't always agree with him. I wouldn't begrudge paying for the content in principle, even given my voluntary "life-of-poverty." I think many readers on his site are accurate when they say that they read him regularly because he seems to understand the idea of "intelligent debate" about real political issues more than most current media personalities. I tend to attribute it, at least in part, to to that good old Oxbridgian education I reckon lies at his roots – and it's the same classical rhetorical tradition that I attempt to imbue when I teach debate to my middle-school students.
I suspect my most likely response will be a) pay for the content, initially, because I value Sullivan's voice, but then b) gradually decline in visits and time spent on the site, because of annoyances with the technical aspect of having to be a paying member where usernames and passwords must constantly be resubmitted (again, because my computers don't do cookies because I'm a bit of a security freak), and finally c) ceasing to pay for the membership because I've stopped visiting the website.
I'm going to try emailing a link to this blog post to the Sully-blog team, in hopes of my voice allowing them to consider some of the issues raised – though in the past my efforts to communicate with the Sully-blog have been at best a mixed bag, unlike the usually rave reviews for reader-communication and dialogue as reported on his site.
And with all that said, I'll change the subject completely. This kid plays a mean washing machine.
This embedded video is, appropriately, courtesy Sullivan's Dish. Just remember – music (and art) is where you find it.