Perhaps users should be encouraged to post gift links wherever possible? And if gift links aren’t available, but users feel it is necessary and/or relevant to provide links to a pay site, perhaps CC could require that user also provide a summary, synopsis, abstract, or other information that at least allows readers to understand the point and/or research further if they see fit?
2 Likes
I say….let people post links with paywalls. As I have done always…if that is the case, I just respond “Paywall”. Either someone else posts a gift link, or not. And I can just move on if I so choose.
I don’t think this paywall vs paywall issue is worth the time it’s taking here. Just post the link and let the users decide what to do next.
But I do like the thread for random articles.
2 Likes
And I will say, if I think an article may be paywalled (because I have a subscription to the site, and so I can’t tell, I do generally mention that (only to find out half the time that it’s freely accessible anyway).
That’s good practice, and should be encouraged. Eliminating references to sources that do good enough work that they can charge for it is bad practice.
A couple of points …
If a news story comes from a credible and reliable source, it will be widely reported across multiple outlets, making it easy for anyone to find a version of the story. In contrast, fake news or misleading information often remains confined to a single, obscure, or biased source.
Paywalled opinion pieces, which offer unique perspectives or analysis, should have key points or the general argument summarized and quoted to ensure accessibility while respecting copyright limitations.
I don’t support censoring bad sources—those that are extreme, biased, or known for publishing false information—but I also don’t support censoring good sources simply because they charge for their content. Good journalism costs money. The New York Times, for example, has 1,700 journalists reporting from 160 countries, and its work shouldn’t be excluded from this forum just because it operates behind a paywall.
Also, I subscribe to a news aggregator. It’s hard/impossible to tell what stories linked from it are paywalled for others.
1 Like
I would say that when posting a link to something with a paywall or other barrier (e.g. registration required), it is best to indicate that there is a paywall or other barrier and give a synopsis of the linked page without going beyond fair use.
3 Likes
For your first sentence, yeah, but only kindasorta and sometimes. It definitely is not always the case though for, say, a local news story that impacts a particular college in an important way.
To your second sentence, I will simply say gestures wildly at social media.
Also disagree with a ban, and find that many here do use gift links. Not having access to an article does not necessarily inhibit the discussion, particularly as others will quote from it or share relevant experiences/thoughts for continued discussion.
If an article is paywalled and I really am interested in it, there are ways to get around that. 
3 Likes
One other issue with paywalled page ban: some sites give a limited number of free pages (possibly for some time period before it resets) before erecting a paywall. So a link to such a page may be free for some readers but paywalled for others (who have used up their free pages). How do such pages count for the purpose of banning paywalled pages?
2 Likes
Maybe already stated, but haven’t read the entire thread:
I can often find my way past a paywall. For example, I believe the Seattle Times does not allow a gift link. Not everyone has access to local news sources, obviously. But I can often type the title or headline into Google, and find it from other sources. Same w/ some major newspapers.
A simple “paywall” note on a post should suffice! If we want more information, we can look for it. It just takes a few extra steps.
I also take note when an opinion is backed by a news source,. Even when I can’t read the entire article, it helps to understand it is not “just an opinion” from the poster, but rather backed by their sources.
2 Likes
On cnn, if you type the headline in google it takes you to the article - without subscription needed.
1 Like
Thank you all for the valuable input! Based on your feedback we have revised the policy as follows:
We will not ban paywalled links, but here are some instructions on how to best deal with them:
- avoid paywalled link and post gift links wherever possible
- if no gift links are available, then provide a summary, synopsis, abstract, or other information that at least allows readers to understand the point and/or research further if they see fit
Rule #2 is even more enforceable if the article is the subject of a new thread. There is literally no point in starting a discussion about an article that is paywalled. So, unless there is a comprehensive summary/abstract/synopsis, the thread will be closed.
7 Likes
You are talking about if a new thread about that article is started, right?
Will articles still be placed in the new thread for sharing articles?
Yes.
Yes, especially if these articles are related to the Parents Cafe or the PF and are not college or admissions related.
2 Likes
Very cool, seems much more reasonable than a blanket ban.
3 Likes
And please tell me the political ones will be in a dedicated thread in the Political Forum. Not in the Parent Cafe.
1 Like
That’s the plan. 
3 Likes
What is this thread that is just to share articles? Is it share the article and then people comment on the topic of the article until the next article is posted? Or…?
But articles that relate to colleges can still have a new thread created so long as it has a gift link or a good synopsis of the article.
Am I understanding the situation correctly?
This is the thread in the Parent Cafe to share articles.
It’s my understanding that if there are a lot of responses to something, a separate thread should be created, right? @CC_Sorin
3 Likes
@AustenNut, yes, that is correct.
4 Likes