The number of "Paywall" articles in 2025 seems to have skyrocketed

[Miles Archer]

Daily Beast...I think you can read one or two articles before you have to create an account, and then, a couple more before it starts saying "YOU'RE ALMOST OUT OF FREE ARTICLES!"

CNN...articles that don't immediately announce they are paywall, then you click on them and it's "FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY!"

MSNBC ( "MS NOW" )...the "TRUMP'S AGENDA" section is paywall.

Raw Story..."You've landed on a Raw Story exclusive..."

Maybe it's my imagination, but I don't remember it being like this a year ago. Sure, there were paywalls. Just not this many.

[rog]

1. This works a fair percentage of the time ...

... https://archive.ph

There are a number of similar sites to break paywalls -- I'm not sure one is better than another.

[Miles Archer]

3. Thank you. I bookmarked it and will give it a try. n/t

[Igel]

9. Haven't used .ph. There're .is and .md as well.

I assume they all point back to the same data heap somewhere because they are all the same after you get past the URL.

Where that petaload of data is ... I'm seriously curious but figure that if it were outed something unpleasant would happen.

[rog]

10. Agreed ... I've noticed the same thing.

I don't know how they're related, but it's been a really good resource for me. So far it's only choked on a couple of paywalls. The WSJ seems particularly tough. I just tried a random article from there, and where it used to just fail, now it's stuck at 'loading', with a blank page.

But most sites seem to be accessible.

[SunSeeker]

2. It's not your imagination. CNN had no paywalls until relatively recently.

Last edited Wed Dec 31, 2025, 08:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Fox doesn't have paywalls, as far as I can tell, unlike WaPo, NYT, etc. Thus, it's easier to get right wing biased news/content. That's why we have so many misinformed voters.

[B.See]

4. Yes. I've noticed that too.

And I'm not a paid member of any of em. Which is why I try to use non-pay-walled alternatives that share the same story (so long as they seem to have legitimate/approved access).

Frankly, I think the pay-walls limit readership and thereby do themselves a disservice.

[canetoad]

5. Yep, I've noticed that

And give Archive.org a hammering on a daily basis.

I think many others are doing the same - rarely do I need to wait while a page is archived; usually already there.

[valleyrogue]

6. Even the Daily Mail has them.

I know media outfits have to make money, but they go to all kinds of extremes.

How I wish for the return of print media.

[Miles Archer]

8. And that's the issue for me...

...I have nothing against a news outlet trying to make money, but:

1). I think they should clearly mark where the paywall articles are, and not mix them in with the others, so you "find out" when you click on them

2). I don't care for the way they do it (you click on the article and are smacked with "PAY UP&quot , but the bigger issue is that 2025 has probably been the worst year I can think of for them to try to strong-arm loyal readers into being paying customers. Any money I would spend on subscriptions is literally needed in other areas of my life for basic "survival expenses." I've done a NUMBER of posts on Trump's tariffs and the pinch we feel when we go grocery shopping. We're spending a LOT MORE and bringing home a LOT LESS.

[Skittles]

7. whatever happened to that deal I think I heard from Dan Rather long ago

where us newshounds could create some kind of account and pay a few cents to access articles from sources across America - I would SO go for that, there are so many articles I have to pass up........

[usonian]

11. When all fact and truth is locked behind paywalls, the vast majority will get only lies and conspiracy theories ...

which are ALWAYS free!!

To wit:

[RedWhiteBlueIsRacist]

12. My adblocker is triggering many, many more sites these days too.

Here's what I say to them: Pay my internet bill, and I'll get rid of my adblocker/s!