Steve Bannon is in a tight spot. He didn’t pay his lawyer, got sued, and now his finances might be subject to review. The problem is, there might be evidence of fraud there.
No need to lock in to a distributor. Just make it, “no paywalls”. I know you probably mean it that way, but it’s the only reason I can think of for getting voted down off of the same opening sentiment that’s at least on the positive side of reception.
Thanks for the reply. If you implemented this rule, would you allow NyTimes articles or other paywalled sources when linked through one of the sites that help bypass paywalls like archive.org?
I really wish there was a rule against articles that are pay-walled. I’m so tired of this shit.
You can go to archive.org and put most any url in the search bar to find an un-paywalled article.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240126164611/https://www.thedailybeast.com/steve-bannon-admits-bank-account-may-have-evidence-of-fraud
Reader mode on firefox and firefox mobile works for me a lot of the time, too.
In aware, but I’m so tired of it. The rule should be that you must link to an archive.org source.
No need to lock in to a distributor. Just make it, “no paywalls”. I know you probably mean it that way, but it’s the only reason I can think of for getting voted down off of the same opening sentiment that’s at least on the positive side of reception.
That’s true, and yes, that is what I meant. Thanks
It’s a topic I should bring up with the other mods, I find it frustrating myself.
Rather than a blanket “no paywalls” ban, we might do it a site at a time, so no NYT, WaPo, WSJ, FT, etc.
The problem doing that is quite a bunch of paywalled sites are major, legit news, while the free sites are fringe/tinfoil hatter productions.
Thanks for the reply. If you implemented this rule, would you allow NyTimes articles or other paywalled sources when linked through one of the sites that help bypass paywalls like archive.org?
Absolutely!