I subscribe to the guardian specifically because it is not paywalled - I get to feel like my subscription helps keep it free for everyone to read, which is genuine value for money.
Yeah, me too and I have never made an account. I don't pay them for me, I pay them for everyone else.
Exactly this. Paywalled news is by definition elitist and works against the democratic principle that the free press exists to inform the public. The way I see it, my choice to subscribe to The Guardian is a choice to invest in society more broadly.
> Paywalled news is by definition elitist and works against the democratic principle that the free press exists to inform the public
You had to pay for a newspaper. Was that elitism?
From my perspective, yes, however newspapers are not really comparable to websites.
Printing a newspaper costs more money than serving a static pageview. But cost of reproduction aside, people could read the newspaper for free at their public library, or down at the local diner, coffee shop or bar. There were newspapers in the break room at work. Teachers got stacks of yesterday's newspaper for free to use in class. Friends and family members could clip articles to share with friends. You could even fish one out of the trash or pick up an abandoned copy from a park bench or public transport seat. And if you really could not find any other way to read it, you could simply buy a single copy - no subscription required, no need to trade PII for access, no cookie popups, no tracking pixels. It's quite a different product.
It's different, but even if distribution were free you still need to pay people to investigate and write the news. It has a cost, and it's not free. It not being free isn't elitist; it's what you do in a society that banned slavery a long time ago.