Forget Net Neutrality, A “Free and Open” Internet is Already a Myth

If you’re to believe the worst of the doomsday predictions about the recent striking down of “Net Neutrality” regulations, then you’re to believe we’re headed for a completely divided internet of digital ghettos, exclusive walled gardens, and certain websites receiving preferential treatment over others.
But in truth, we’re already there.
As a music fan, you might remember the Net Neutrality issue becoming a big cause célèbre within the music community back in 2017. Hundreds of musicians like R.E.M., My Morning Jacket, and Killer Mike signed a petition imploring that the Net Neutrality rules not be rolled back. Labels such as Bloodshot Records, Sub Pop, and Third Man Records spoke up as well, warning it would make their websites, and the websites for their independent artists difficult to impossible to access.
Even Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Google all came out in favor of maintaining the Net Neutrality regulations at the time, before softening their positions, and generally going silent on the matter as time went on, in part because it seemed the worst fears of what deregulation could mean were unlikely to come to fruition.
What were those fears? That Internet Service Providers, or ISPs, would start charging consumers different rates to access different web properties, sort of like cable. For example, there might be one price for a “basic” internet service, and then upcharges for YouTube, Facebook, Rolling Stone, or The New York Times. Want to get access to independent websites like Saving Country Music or SturgillSimpson.com? We’ll that might be another charge.

But none of this came to fruition, even when the regulations were rolled back by the FCC in 2018 during the first Trump Administration. In fact, nothing really materially changed on the consumer side of the internet from the move at all, though perhaps hypothetically, it still could at some point. But up until The Biden Administration reinstated the rules in 2024, the fear of a tiered internet never came to fruition. Then earlier this month, the Sixth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals basically said the FCC can’t reinstate the Net Neutrality rules, meaning they’re dead for good unless Congress acts.
I won’t bore you with any more of the technical details on Net Neutrality here. Feel free to read up on it more if you wish. My only point is that we didn’t need some sort of dystopian regulation—or the lack thereof—to turn the internet into a distinctly anti-democratic walled off maze bifurcating the have’s and have not’s. We did this ourselves through paywalls and subscription-based websites.
Please understand, this is not an assertion that the rolling back of the Net Neutrality regulations couldn’t be a concern for the future. But what’s of greater concern is the actual reality of the internet today, not the hypothetical of what might happen tomorrow now that Net Neutrality regs are no longer in place, especially after we’ve already lived in a non Net Neutrality world for a while.
As the below social media post illustrates, the concern for rolling back Net Neutrality regulations is that the internet would no longer be “free and open.”

But the internet is not free and open. Far from it. And Net Neutrality has nothing to do with it. The irony is that if you actually click on the link for the Rolling Stone and are not a subscriber to the publication, this is what you’ll see.

Almost 100% of Rolling Stone‘s content is paywalled. Same goes for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, many other top-tier news and entertainment websites on the internet, along with most all local newspaper websites in the United States. We’re already living in tiered internet hell.
No doubt, important journalistic institutions deserve to be supported financially so they can continue to deploy journalistic resources to cover topics that are critically important to communities and the world. But consumers shouldn’t be expected to subscribe to dozens of different websites just to stay informed on current events, or see differing perspectives. And ironically, many of these paywalled websites still service significant amounts of ads, so subscription dollars aren’t in lieu of pop ups and click-thrus to get to the content.
It perhaps makes more sense to offer a mix of free and paid-for content. For example, Billboard has a paywall for their “pro” content, meaning articles that mostly appeal to professionals in the music industry. The theory is these industry people can probably pay, while John Q. Public can still read the more celebrity-style and short-form news coverage from Billboard subscription free.
Other websites and podcasters give subscribers first access, and make content free for everyone later, or will offer bonus content to subscribers only. This is still less than ideal to the “free and open” internet policy, but a lot more tolerable, and perhaps helps free up publications from having to rely so much on clicks.
But remember the dystopian idea that we’d have to pay for certain websites in bundles if Net Neutrality rules were eliminated? That already exists, it’s just done through these subscription and paywall models. For example, if you pay for an Apple News+ subscription, you get a host of paywalled sites with it.

What major websites are still free? Places like Barstool Sports and Whiskey Riff, a.k.a. the digital ghetto. It also happens to be than many free websites that are suddenly veering to the political right, and this might be one of the reasons recent elections around the globe are going the way they are. Elite, high-brow discussions about culture and politics are often happening behind paywalls, inaccessible to average citizens who either can’t or won’t pay for news when there’s so many other free, ad-supported options.
You can’t wage a revolution behind a paywall. It’s even difficult to engage in meaningful activism if you’re limiting your audience. One of the reason it feels like were living in two separate Americas is because we’re consuming two separate tiers of news. And one of the most pernicious aspects of paywalls is that if you don’t interface with them, you have no idea that so many internet users are.
Paying a modest subscription for your local newspaper, or perhaps a national publication or two makes sense. But as our perspectives become increasingly siloed, it’s perhaps never more important to interface with differing viewpoints that challenge our own. That’s difficult to impossible under the current model. Yes, journalists and publications need to be paid. But it’s unclear if paywalls actually work to increase revenue. Though they do in some cases, in others, revenue decreases.
As one study explained, “The research revealed that the effects of paywalls varied significantly from newspaper to newspaper, ranging from a 24 percent increase to a 12 percent decline in total revenue…While paywalls brought a success for some newspapers, the net effect of a paywall on digital revenue was negative for many newspapers as a significant decline in digital advertising revenue due to declined visits to their websites virtually cancelled the newly generated digital subscription revenue.”
What does any of this have to do with country music? Over the last eight years or so, we’ve seen an increasing amount of conversations about country music in many of these paywalled and elite publications that are completely detached from reality, and the lives country fans actually live. This is because this media is not for actual country fans who are less likely to subscribe to The New York Times or The Washington Post, or even Texas Monthly. It is for their more upper crust clientele who will subscribe, including some who then turn their nose down on America’s unwashed rural population.
A free and open internet? That hasn’t been the reality for years now, and it’s getting worse by the minute like the frog getting cooked in the boiling pot as the majority of the internet gets placed behind blinders, irrespective of Net Neutrality concerns. How do we stop it? Should important local and national news be subsidized like farming since it’s so essential to democracy? Should advertising models be more lucrative to help keep the internet open? Perhaps there’s no easy solution.
But let’s face it, the problem of a tiered and walled-off internet isn’t something to fear for the future. It’s already here.
January 16, 2025 @ 9:17 am
Most paywalls aren’t really rock solid. The media outlets like to have it both ways – you need to pay to read, but we also want google and other search engines to be able to access the content in order to generate clicks. As a result, most internet paywalls can be circumvented without too much difficulty. Of course, you can make a strong argument that this is not ethical, but you can also make a strong argument that the media outlets instituting these paywalls shouldn’t have it both ways.
But my argument against the net neutrality rules is that we need to err on the side of free speech. As a result, I would also argue that the companies that are instituting these paywalls should be able to do so, and then suffer any negative consequences involved.
January 16, 2025 @ 9:30 am
No doubt if you’re savvy, you can get around many paywalls, though many of the big, national publications have really tightened the screws recently to made sure this doesn’t happen, and maybe you only get one free article a month. But I think the average internet user is not going to know the tricks of this trade. They’re going to frequent the websites that are easy to access and in their feed. They might see a headline from The New York Times on X/Facebook, click on it, and get blocked, but then find an article written about the same topic on some other website and read that one.
I think the most ironic moment is when you have outlets advocating for a free and open internet behind a paywall.
January 17, 2025 @ 11:27 am
For years, you could just view the source and there would be a bypass link right there in the meta data. Those were the days 🙂
January 16, 2025 @ 10:17 am
I wonder what the next iteration of the internet will look like. What we experience today is far different from the internet of 2005. Most artists are struggling because they can’t monetize their music like they could pre-high speed internet. Maybe the next version of the internet will be more peer-to-peer based and give artists new ways to monetize without resulting to ad views and clicks which is growing more reliant ton bot traffic and the growing “dead internet.” (people buy followers on social media to hit 30k to boost their opportunities) There are efforts to shift the US dollar into Crypto currency which could aid this growth in revenue however I think it’s setting us all up for a huge financial collapse.
January 18, 2025 @ 12:44 pm
Completely wrong take from people who dont understand a thing.
Paywalls on sites = Admission charge at a The Grand Ol’ Opry.
Net Neutrality = No tolls on I-40 on the way to the Opry. The gas and registration are enough to get you to the Opry.
You argue that since the Opry charges admission we shouldnt care about the possibility that the roads we travel could instal toll booths.
The author will never save country music by bowing down to the folks Johnny Cash gave the finger.
January 18, 2025 @ 2:21 pm
“The author will never save country music by bowing down to the folks Johnny Cash gave the finger.”
You have no idea who you are talking to.
Completely understand the differences between paywalls and Net Neutrality regulations. It was underscored in the article twice that concerns about Net Neutrality are not necessarily unfounded, just that they have not come to fruition over many years when they could have, which is an empirical truth.
The primary point is if content is locked behind paywalls, it is not “free and open,” unquote. This is also empirically true.
January 16, 2025 @ 9:52 am
This is probably one of the best and most incisive things I’ve read on the state of the internet today. I realize the country music relevance is tangential, but enshittification doesn’t discriminate in what it devalues.
January 16, 2025 @ 7:58 pm
Thanks for the term enshittification!
January 16, 2025 @ 9:58 am
I find it funny that you think The New York Times and The Washington Post are still these beacons of important journalism that must remain. Sure they USED TO BE decades ago but now they are not much more than smug propagandist arms of the DNC. Both directly take editorial direction from the White House. Rolling Stone dropped their hard-hitting journalism against the State after 2009.
Responding to the political side of this, the reason for paywalls on left-leaning sources is an attempt to garner revenue from their ever-shrinking viewer base. CNN has tried this at least once to hilarious results. If they had the organic viewership AD revenue would have kept them afloat. Many right-wing content creators who migrated off Youtube and adopted paywalls for content did so because they were getting strikes on Youtube or just flat-out banned and many of their viewers followed them.
Some Left-wing sources have large organic followings like Hasan Piker but many hybrid left-wing legacy media people are crying about Joe Rogan’s success and viewership while not realizing and accepting that they just aren’t making content people want to watch. And that isn’t because they aren’t pandering to the base desires of the dumb collective but because they aren’t as intellectual and interesting as they think they are.
January 16, 2025 @ 10:18 am
“I find it funny that you think The New York Times and The Washington Post are still these beacons of important journalism that must remain. “
I don’t recall stating that in this article. I don’t expect The New York Times to go anywhere anytime soon. They’re doing quite well. The Washington Post is in free fall, and might not make it to next week, we’ll see. My only point is that one of the reasons there’s such bifurcation in American society is were feeding at two completely separate troughs of information, and these paywalls facilitate this.
I’ve had strong criticisms of both The New York Times and The Washington Post and their coverage of country music over the years. But I think it’s foolish to not recognize they have significant cultural influence.
January 16, 2025 @ 10:26 am
“No doubt, important journalistic institutions deserve to be supported financially so they can continue to deploy journalistic resources to cover topics that are critically important to communities and the world.”
January 16, 2025 @ 12:13 pm
Wouldn’t you agree? I think the death of the local newspaper and the nationalization of news has been catastrophic. I wouldn’t take that as an assumption I’m talking about newspapers I have dedicated tons of ink to criticizing. Though at the same time, I’m not advocating for the death of The New York Times, just a reformation. They can start by hiring an actual country music journalist as opposed to putting their pop writer on the beat.
January 16, 2025 @ 2:00 pm
As it pertains to the arts and music yeah I would agree that certain legacy outlets should stay around and that certain public funding is acceptable. Even within the context of Nashville I want to see public money go to ensuring that certain landmarks like the Ryman continue to exist and maintain the same integrity. It’s just impossible to seperate outlets like The New York Times and Washington Post from their political connotations.
January 16, 2025 @ 3:02 pm
I agree the death of local news papers, only leaving us with national papers is a sin. Small locally focused Facebook news pages seem to be the only local news coverage small towns now have. A small village just a couple miles up the road from me started a weekly messenger. It’s printed once per week, isn’t delivered you have to pick it up at a local business of your choice and is free. For businesses to advertise in it is $20/quarter. It reminds me of what local newspapers use to be
January 16, 2025 @ 10:29 am
I get that because they have been around so long that people tend to view those outlets as still having some sort of presitge. I don’t ever consume content that is not critical of both political sides. There are times that those sites have non-political articles that I would want to read but quickly choose not to when they are behind a paywall
January 16, 2025 @ 12:55 pm
Perspective matters, however.
I have no qualms with acknowledging that I’m a left-leaning person who shares the love of country music as others from other sides of the political spectrum.
I can’t tell you how many times in the last two years I’ve seen thousands of “leftists” proclaim that they’re done with the New York Times, Washington Post & CNN et al, because of “the pandering to the right”.
The real truth of the matter is: all of these major media outlets are owned by corporations that donate primarily to conservative political candidates.
They merely publish/provide content towards wherever the reader or viewer base will get them the most visibility.
It’s high time that people who consider themselves “right or left” begin to realize that these media conglomerates are no more friend or ally to the common American regardless of what you consider yourself to be politically speaking.
The faster we come to that conclusion as a society, the easier it’s gonna be for us to start finding the common ground that we actually have. After all; nearly all of the dissent and polarizing political opinions that exist in our country our prepackaged fabrications created by these media outlets to continue to perpetuate these falsehoods…. because it’s good for business for them. Anyway, have a good one, fellow American.
January 16, 2025 @ 2:02 pm
A lot of corporations will donate to candidates on both sides but I am having trouble seeing how anyone can seriously make the claim that New York Times, Washington Post & CNN were carrying water for Republicans – especially when their coverage of Trump was over 90% negative and the same IS NOT true of Biden.
January 16, 2025 @ 2:32 pm
For context, here’s a CNN piece in March where it highlights that The NY Times has softened its stance on Trump coverage, and spent an inordinate amount of time focusing on the age & mental acuity – or lack thereof – of the sitting President (which not only continued but dramatically escalated until Biden was forced out of the race altogether; while completely ignoring the age & mental acuity of his challenger; who is close to the same age & just as mentally addled.
I’ve already allowed myself to push this too much into full blown political discourse, so I’m peeling off from here.
The only reason I’m even bringing this article up is because as I said to start my original comment: “PERSPECTIVE MATTERS.”
These mainstream media platforms exist for revenue and nothing more. When it doesn’t gain them the profit, they seek to tailor their content towards one particular mindset, they will have no problem, reversing course and applying a full court press where it will generate them profit. These institutions do not exist on principled paths that aligns with any political party in our country, full stop.
If it’s difficult to make that connection, it could mean you’re spending far too much time receiving your news from my filtered lens that has prevented you from seeing with a view towards objectivity.
And that my friends, was the plan all along: to divide and conquer us so those with the power can go about raiding your retirement nest eggs & run away like thieves in the night.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/05/media/new-york-times-trump-coverage-backlash
January 17, 2025 @ 10:28 am
You made some points, but you’re behind the beat about the Washington Post. The Washington Post wouldn’t endorse a candidate for president, then it wouldn’t run a cartoon criticizing some ultra-wealthy gentlemen, among them the Washington Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos.
In general, seems like businesses these days succeed by selling fewer, high-priced items to the upper-middle class and wealthy AS OPPOSED TO selling higher-volume, low-priced items to the middle-class. From applesauce to music tickets.
January 17, 2025 @ 10:31 am
[replying to Strait :-)] also, in the last sentence, make that “From applesauce to music tickets TO VEHICLES.
January 16, 2025 @ 10:06 am
the big problem with this is that without net neutrality laws, ISPs could limit more than just the social media by price. they could say provide something like entertainment-as-news site fox news in the free tier and charge for access to real legitimate news sites.
January 16, 2025 @ 10:18 am
Where did Bill O’ Reilly touch you? lol
January 16, 2025 @ 11:02 am
funny that you would use a a guy who has had multiple sexual harassment settlements
January 16, 2025 @ 2:59 pm
Only one whining & crying is you over multiple replies. Your dude won cupcake, calm down
January 16, 2025 @ 7:39 pm
I’m actually quite happy about it.
January 16, 2025 @ 10:20 am
The problem is that “could” quotient. They had six years to do this, and never did. I agree that it is something we should be mindful of and on guard for. But it remains a hypothetical that I think the free market would immediately reject as soon as it was tried. Meanwhile, the paywalling of the internet is very real, and here now.
January 16, 2025 @ 10:31 am
yeah, we wouldn’t want to be proactive about anything even though most people agree that would be bad.
(conservatives, feel free to imagine this as npr in the free tier and fox news as a paid bundle that also includes vip access to kid rock’s bar).
January 16, 2025 @ 10:38 am
If you want to be proactive, advocating for Net Neutrality regulations behind a paywall is pretty daft. As I said twice in the article, I’m not saying there’s no concern with Net Neutrality. I’m just saying there is a bigger concern here and now.
January 16, 2025 @ 12:47 pm
They’ve kinda managed to do the same thing, just the opposite way. A lot of ISPs (including cell service providers) provide free access to certain subscriptions, like Netflix. Fundamentally, that is raising the cost of internet access to everyone, for the benefit of those who want that specific service. And it makes Netflix’s competitors (in this example) more expensive in comparison.
With real Net Neutrality, ISPs become just a dumb pipe to provide you access to all of the internet, and there is no preference given to any parts of the internet.
The current system doesn’t seem as awful as NN proponents imagined or warned, but I still think real Net Neutrality would be better.
January 16, 2025 @ 12:55 pm
Netflix and the streaming services are somewhat different, because those include royalty-based content, just like Spotify. Creators get compensated through those royalties, so fees must be assessed. I’m totally okay with that. I’m even okay with paywalls or “subscriber” content in certain circumstances. But I do think the ideal is a truly “free and open” internet.
January 16, 2025 @ 10:29 am
Paywalls are annoying but what’s the difference from the old days when you’d read a newspaper? Was the newspaper handed out for free?
January 16, 2025 @ 10:44 am
First off, newspapers were super cheap. 25-50 cents, maybe a dollar, and were still basically supported by ads. Second, you didn’t have to buy every single newspaper for a year or a month just to read one article that is about something that is of interest to you. You could go buy one on a newsstand.
And alternative newsweeklies where most music coverage and music calendars were were always free. That’s because they were more interested in spreading the word as opposed to padding their bottom dollar.
But hey, if folks want a digital subscription to their local newspaper, I’m all for it. But I can’t subscribe to every local newspaper in the United States just to stay informed on what is happening in country music on a local level.
January 16, 2025 @ 10:50 am
You realize that Rolling Stone is a magazine, right? And that until most everything became digital people had to buy the magazine to read it?
Why is it so problematic that they now have it as a subscription service online that you have to pay to read. It’s not different at all.
January 16, 2025 @ 11:01 am
“Rolling Stone” operated an online website that was free and ad supported for nearly 20 years before they were purchased by the massive conglomerate Penske Media who also owns Billboard and a bunch of other media brands, and they instituted a paywall.
I think there’s great irony in advocating for a free and open internet behind a paywall. And I’m not sure how anyone couldn’t see that.
January 16, 2025 @ 1:40 pm
Rolling Stone also used to see massive revenue from subscriptions and newsstand/bookstore/etc. sales. That of course has declined.
Basically what you are saying is that you want something for free.
Anything else you’d like for free, Kyle?
January 16, 2025 @ 3:10 pm
“I think there’s great irony in advocating for a free and open internet behind a paywall. And I’m not sure how anyone couldn’t see that.”
I’m not sure if I’m missing something here, or if you’re conflating two separate issues, so I’m laying this out and asking it as a genuine question, not a “gotcha” or disagreement.
From my understanding, the debate around net neutrality centers on a couple primary topics: whether ISPs can block and throttle traffic to certain sites (i.e. make it faster/slower to access sites relative to one another) and whether ISPs are subject to public interest oversight by the FCC. In other words, if you’re in favor of net neutrality, you’re arguing that 1) ISPs shouldn’t be able to block and throttle and 2) they should be under FCC oversight given their status as “common carriers.”
If you’re Rolling Stone, The New York Times, Netflix, Paramount+, or any other content provider with a paywall, why is it inconsistent to say that ISPs should be subject to oversight and regulation as common carriers AND people should have to pay for the products you produce and offer up online? I don’t see the irony or disconnect there, but you’re saying you don’t see how anyone could miss it. What am I missing?
January 16, 2025 @ 3:27 pm
You’re missing the key component here, which is the reason I included illustrations in this article. Pushing aside the minutiae of Net Neutrality, if you’re advocating for a “free and open” internet behind a paywall, you’re not only being hypocritical, you’re being self-defeating. I kind of feel like that’s self-evident. The fear that was used to warn us about Net Neutrality (another illustration), was a tiered internet where certain websites would be accessible, and others wouldn’t. This is the reality in the present day, while deregulation had years to implement such tiered plans, and never did, mostly because the free market would never allow it.
Please understand that I am not arguing against Net Neutrality. I am a small website owner. This is my career. If small websites were demoted in some new school system, I would be a victim of this. That is why I have been keeping up with this issue for years. But the fears never came to fruition, while a walled internet did.
January 16, 2025 @ 9:17 pm
I appreciate the response and your explanation.
I fully understand you’re not arguing against Net Neutrality and that the potential exists for a tiered internet system to be put in place that would be devastating for your business (and all of us readers!). I also understand and agree with your assessment that that hasn’t happened yet but a paywalled internet largely has.
This probably isn’t even a point worth debating since it seems like it’s maybe just semantic, but now that I’m understanding your point clearly, I don’t think I agree with it, let alone find it self-evident. I interpret calls for a “free and open” internet as similar to calls for a free market. In other words, an internet where websites can rise and fall on their merits and based on consumer preference rather than due to the whims or decisions of an ISP. In this open market, some companies have chosen to provide their service to customers for free and earn revenue through ads. Others have chosen to monetize their content via subscriptions and paywalls. A smaller number choose not to monetize their sites at all but simply maintain them as a labor of love and don’t care about traffic volume. All are participating in the same “free and open” marketplace.
To use a fitting analogy for this website, I’m thinking of it like different types of music venues. Some bars have live music that you can enjoy at no cost. Some charge a cover at the door to get in. Other sell pricey tickets that you need to buy in advance. Aren’t they all participating in a free and open marketplace?
We may just be thinking about or understanding the meaning of “advocating for a “free and open” internet” differently, and I don’t want to waste your time bogged down in semantics if so.
January 16, 2025 @ 3:08 pm
If they had meaningful articles, news or info to offer, their site views would be through the roof. Their sponsorships and advertiser $’s would then be through the roof. It’s on their sales team’s back to make the company money, not an average run of the mill reader who wants to read one article
January 16, 2025 @ 11:27 am
It’s funny Trig since you put this up this morning, it’s the first time I actually thought about the digital subscription price to my local newspaper. I’ve been a subscriber to the Daily Herald a suburban Chicago paper for decades, even when it was delivered to my doorstep. I still download the PDF every morning first thing to read it. The yearly cost is $119, or .32 cents a day. I could probably find most or much of the information/news stories for free, but I have no problem paying the reasonable price. I love my paper like I love this site…LOL
January 16, 2025 @ 12:48 pm
.32 cents a day to support your local newspaper makes perfect sense. But the problem is if I want to read a story about a local Chicago band, I don’t want to have to pay $119 a year to do it, because I have to do this for every market in the United States.
Local papers are where paywalls make the most sense. Activist journalist outlets like “Rolling Stone” is where it makes the least.
January 16, 2025 @ 10:35 am
Whew! What a relief! As I was reading the article I was waiting for the other shoe to drop. I honestly feared that you (Trigger) were building the case for adding a paywall to SCM.
January 16, 2025 @ 12:50 pm
I’d rather shut the website down before instituting a paywall. It goes completely against the mission of this website, which is to attract good music fans like bees to honey, and recruit them to the independent country cause.
FYI, I am going to have a “State of the Union” article about the website coming up where I discuss this more.
January 16, 2025 @ 2:40 pm
Might want to not forget that there are those of us out here who would gladly put into a virtual trip jar, now and then.
A hundred here, a hundred there, could certainly help with gas money.
January 16, 2025 @ 3:25 pm
“That was tip, before it was changed to trip.
But, seeing the humor in it, it totally works for the entirety of the statement.
The smartphone got it right for once.
Hallelujah!
January 16, 2025 @ 10:50 am
“Elite, high-brow discussions about culture and politics are often happening behind paywalls, inaccessible to average citizens who either can’t or won’t pay for news when there’s so many other free, ad-supported options.”
I had been a digital NYTimes subscriber for around 12 years when I canceled last fall. Why? Because I made repeated comments questioning story selection on related articles, and the NY Times published none. The story greatly impacted my neighborhood, city, and state. The story would have hurt Harris’ campaign, so the Times ignored it. Then, when they finally acknowledged it, they lied to the readers, claiming it wasn’t happening and was a right-wing hoax. I saw what was happening with my own eyes, and Fox News covered it.
So, that high-browed discussion wasn’t worth the subscription cost to this reader.
January 16, 2025 @ 2:04 pm
What story exactly?
The astroturfing of Kamala was such a good propaganda effort that it would have made Stalin blush.
January 16, 2025 @ 4:24 pm
The Denver/Aurora TdA takeover of multiple apartment complexes. It was a result of the Biden/Harris open border policy. The DEIcrats in Colorado claimed it wasn’t real. It was. I am involved in property management in the Denver/Aurora area.
I’m not even a Republican, vote almost entirely third party, and am pro-legal immigration, so this isn’t some ideological perspective I have. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, and the evidence of this happening is massive.
The NY Times was more interested in protecting the Democratic nominee than covering a real news story.
January 16, 2025 @ 7:39 pm
Yeah that story was insane. There is literal video evidence and testimony from the tenants who live there and that story was absolutely buried.
January 16, 2025 @ 12:42 pm
Risky Whiff taking shots across the bow. Barstool Sports is the TMZ of Deadspins.
Good article. And as equally odorous as the fears of the ever expanding grip of pay-to-read content…. is that it leaves free content as a primary source of news and information an ever widening populace – most of that coming from social media, which is now steering itself towards complete and utter lack of any moderation or fact checking of any kind.
And no, this is not limited solely to the political arena. I see numerous articles posted on aggregator social media sites, spewing completely, and easily debunk misinformation about any topic you can think of – including the music business.
Throw reckless AI into there as well, and the prospect of having to pay just so you can get accurate information from reliable sources spells the beginning of the end for a free and fair media
January 19, 2025 @ 7:30 am
100% agree. Its a bummer some great sites went paywall to avoid being canceled. And these legacy outlets like NPR , vice, and rolling stone have just become 90% opinion pieces. Then sites like AP news bury your screen with pop up ads.
January 16, 2025 @ 1:09 pm
The lack of competition between service providers is a bigger concern to me. I can get GB internet from one company or I can get 80MB from the other.
That’s not exactly the free market either?
I also reject the idea the subscription to Texas Monthly I purchased for a coworkers grade school fundraiser makes me an elitist.
Having the free time to offer opinions like Shooter Jennings is a net negative as a producer and Turnpike shouldn’t use him next album” is what makes me an elitist…and correct
January 16, 2025 @ 3:48 pm
Friendly reminder that, in the US, your local library card can probably get you free access to many otherwise paywalled periodicals (and, less relevant to this post, e-books and audiobooks).
January 16, 2025 @ 4:08 pm
I frequent different aggregator sites for news and information, I can find pretty much any information I am looking for from a combination a few different sites.
Freerepublic.com has been around for a long time and has tons of information, members can post articles, links and comments, has no ads and operates strictly on donations from it’s members. Worth a look.
January 16, 2025 @ 10:08 pm
I wish you could just pay a nominal fee per article on certain paywalled sites, similar to if you were at a store and saw a newspaper or magazine that you wanted to buy.
January 17, 2025 @ 4:22 am
There’s an old saying that goes “Freedom of the press is for those who already own one.”
The internet is beyond physical borders and what is law in one country is not necessarily observed in another. Try as they will, national laws have no jurisdiction on a web which is everywhere and nowhere.
However, as you alluded to, private companies can and will. It isn’t governments that have sovereignty online, it’s the dissemination of information through privately owned outlets. All websites are run as a sort of benevolent dictatorship where participation is only done with the blessing of the site owner, even this one.
January 17, 2025 @ 6:59 am
I don’t know about you guys, but I get a smile on my face when I get around a paywall.
January 17, 2025 @ 7:13 am
One thing has proven true over and over and over again. More government regulation never results in better outcome for consumers. It often results in high costs and more problems in which the government will promise to fix with more regulation, and more problems.
There is an easy solution to paywalls. Don’t pay for them. Something that is already happening as the large media giants are finding out as they losing millions of dollars while their subscriptions dwindle away. WAPO, NY Times, LA Times, are all cutting costs and laying off workers while proposing a return to AD based websites. Smaller newspapers are folding behind their paywalls. Meanwhile Fox News website is still #1 with its AD based website. Same in sports media as sites like ESPN, Sports Illustrated, and The Atlantic are being overtaken by the once smaller and inconsequential websites like Bleacher Report. The power of the consumer will always outweigh regulation.
January 17, 2025 @ 11:49 am
This is simply Libertarian talking points 101.
Net Neutrality simply made it law that internet service providers – of which most people only have 1 real choice in subscribing to – couldn’t say “website A gives us money, so we make connecting to website A super quick over website B that DOESN’T pay”. It was remarkably light touch regulation that ISP’s ONLY pushed back on because they want the option to someday throttle traffic or prioritize traffic if it makes their stock price go up.
I can’t think of why anyone would be against it short of being a communications executive.
January 17, 2025 @ 2:05 pm
If it were only this simple. Net neutrality turns ISPs into public utilities, making private companies into government regulated entities like power, water, ect. It was initially passed as a presidential executive order by Obama because it couldn’t get through Congress. An order effecting private companies, not federal government, and outside his jurisdiction. Not that legality was a concern for him.
The law can be used to impose federal regulations on private businesses, and can be used for political motives. Obama himself spoke of using this law as well as the FCC to shut down Fox News.
There is a reason why one party wants this so badly. The bullying of social media companies to adhere to a one party censorship is proof.
Let Net Neutrality pass congress legally, and through negotiations and actual legislation instead of presidential decree. Maybe they come up with reasonable legislation that benefits everyone, but I doubt it.
January 18, 2025 @ 7:43 am
The FCC and “Obama going after Fox News” has nothing to do with net neutrality.
I noticed as well you side-stepped any mention that people actually LIKE their ISPs with it’s current zero regulation approach to the industry.
Should it pass through Congress? Sure, but that ain’t gonna happen in a world of corrupt folks like Chuck Schumer and Lauren Bobert.
I’m sure your libertarian viewpoint will just say “free market will settle it”, when most people have the choice between 1 wireline provider….and?
The “free market” has failed Americans when it comes to broadband. Americans pay higher prices, have data caps, and companies routinely take forever to fix outages with no recourse to the consumer other than piss in the wind.
January 18, 2025 @ 8:07 am
Net Neutrality is nothing more than an attempt to reign in the internet into government control, disguised as a consumer protection measure. After being put in place by Obama there was literally no change to ISP availability. Biden announced its return calling it Internet Freedom, and poured Billions into this so called freedom. It has resulted in zero new internet connections or available choice of options.
The free market on the other hand has installed millions of miles of fiber optic across the country. There are more options now than ever before including Cable, DSL, satellite, Cellular, and Fiber Optic. But I suppose this huge investment by private companies should come free or at a low cost. Kinda like the low price of current utilities like water, gas, and power lol. Because they are so cheap.
New nanny state laws aren’t needed. The truth is Net Neutrality was never actually about helping the consumer.
January 20, 2025 @ 10:27 pm
The free market installed miles if fibre optic cables because the ISP pricing was uniform and users could view and download without a tierd plans and the demand is there. The so called “huge investment” has certainly yielded “huge” profits for ARmT&T, Verizon et al, don’t you think?
All this complaining about the so called “nanny state” – yeah, nanny to coms and their monolithic control.
January 21, 2025 @ 6:41 am
So what your saying, the demand is there, the pricing is uniform, and the investment from these companies is providing options for high speed internet for pretty much everyone, and to a profit for the companies.
Explain to me why Net Neutrality is needed again? Could it be Government’s monolithic control?
January 17, 2025 @ 9:05 am
The subscription rate of the Orlando Sentinel (daily paper copy and digital access) is $200/month. Divide 30 days into $200 and you get a daily rate of $6.66. Yes, it’s evil.
January 18, 2025 @ 9:43 am
Never trust the government.
January 19, 2025 @ 10:43 am
Never believe anything until it’s been officially denied.
January 20, 2025 @ 10:30 pm
“Now More Than Ever” (Nixon 1972)
January 18, 2025 @ 5:17 pm
You are seriously mixing two separate issues here. Net neutrality keeps a third party from building a wall around your restaurant and charging for access. With net neutrality, customers can come to the front door and then decide if they want to pay the price for a meal. The money goes to the content provider, not to some gate keeper with no vested interest in the in the websites they are gatekeeping.
To all the folks saying companies need to step up their advertising game and make their content free, I have bad news. Google and Facebook control the lion’s share of advertising; everyone else is picking away at the crumbs on the edge. Google and Facebook can target specific massive audiences for their ads, giving clients the best bang for the buck, so that’s where advertisers go. Very few major websites can survive on advertising alone.
Which brings me to your Spotify example — you say it’s okay for Spotify to charge so content creators can get paid. Yet you seem to be against newspapers charging; I guess journalists are content creators that don’t deserve to get paid?
I have no problem with paying for content. I would have issues with someone blocking me from reaching those websites so I can decide if I want to pay or not. I subscribe to The Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, and The Athletic, as all of those provide content that I deem worthwhile. Heck, I’d even pay for SCM if it went behind a paywall!
January 18, 2025 @ 11:13 pm
Hey Steverino,
So I thought I did a very thorough job of disambiguation between the two issues I was broaching in the article. Not only did I personally iterate they were two separate issues, I underscored this just to be as demonstrative as possible. So while you might disagree with the opinions shared here, there is no confusion.
Look, I am both a journalist, and someone who advocates for fair pay for musicians and songwriters. So the idea that I’m playing for the wrong side here is a little bit silly. But there is a big difference between a royalty-based system paying out creators, and for hire or self-employed print and photo-based journalism.
I never said I was against newspapers charging. Anyone can charge whatever they want. But I think it’s ironic that certain outlets demand a “free and open” internet when all of their content is behind a paywall.
Saving Country Music would never go behind a paywall for the same reason Rolling Stone has become completely incapable of influencing culture. You can’t preach to a choir, you have to grow the congregation.
January 19, 2025 @ 4:55 pm
What you are up intimating is something that several of us already know.
You think you have the key to influencing a Rolling Stones audience, if Only you don’t put SCM behind a paywall.
Going to say this in plain, simple language.
Unless you have GOD at the forefront, you are not going anywhere.
January 19, 2025 @ 10:42 am
I wanted to surprise my wife with some authentic Southern cooking the other day, so I went to Google for a receipt on hot chicks in oil.
What I got, was a load of Sodoma and Gomorrah.
Google isn’t what it’s cranked up to be.
January 20, 2025 @ 6:19 pm
Fight the power. Piracy forever, pay? Never. Paywalls are made to be bypassed. Learn how. Ditto downloading music. Support artists via shows and merch, and shun the corporate overlords.
January 20, 2025 @ 7:50 pm
This is article is why “arrists” should not comment on tech issues. Net neutrality is not about pay walls. It’s about how ISPs will now be able to increase rates on how much data you use. So users who use more data will be charged more. Like phone plans that limit you to 4gb and then either cut your speed down unless you pay a higher rate. I’m sure unlimited plans will go through the roof or disappear, instead leading to plans by the gig. So that sticks it to ” creators”, “artists” and “podcasters”. So PLA TikTok will one again be “free” – you just have to pay per gb to use it.
Impacting (selfish/shallow/monetized) “creators” is one thing. How will this scenario impact research for technology and medicine (for instance)? Another cost burden to enrich some at the cost of others – including end users who will bare the costs.
The internet has become a major thread in the fabric of society- and should be equitable and available to all, not as a caste system. What’s next, charging more for the air you breathe?
Let’s see how this nrw “net neutrality” hierarchy plays out when streaming a NASCAR race, hearing Carrie’s latest on Spotify or Rogan’s latest spew costs an arm and a leg. You wanted it you got it, bro’s.
January 20, 2025 @ 8:18 pm
“This is article is why “arrists” should not comment on tech issues. Net neutrality is not about pay walls. It’s about how ISPs will now be able to increase rates on how much data you use.”
I honestly don’t mean to come across as combative. But this is the 3rd or 4th late comment on this article—and from regular readers no less—who seemed to have not read the article itself, and feel like I have no clue there is a difference between Net Neutrality regulations and paywalls. Of course there is a difference. I was extremely expressive in the article there was a difference, and have underscored it now numerous times in comments. If you disagree with the opinion I shared, I respect that. If you say that I don’t understand what Net Neutrality and paywalls are and am conflating the two, you’re incorrect, and uninformed.
Also, the Net Neutrality regulations ended on June 11th, 2018. There’s been 6 1/2 years for the supposed hellscape of a non Net Neutrality internet to take shape, and so far there hasn’t been a single ISP play ball. Why? Because the free market wouldn’t bear it. As I said in the article, twice, that doesn’t mean it still isn’t a possibility, and that doesn’t mean people still shouldn’t be concerned over it. But so far, in six years, all the concerns have yet to come to fruition.
Meanwhile, paywalls have walled of large portions of the internet. That is real, not a hypothetical.
January 20, 2025 @ 10:17 pm
I stand corrected, but I stand by my point that neutrality will be even more volatile. In 2018, tech was an adversary, now it is an integral and influential (controlling) aspect of the new government – with that “Market Forces” are different now since who will do the regulating?
Paywall discussion kindbof moot. Great discussions are hidden behind paywalls, but then again, stuff like the Times and other legacy outlets aren’t popular anymore. Seems people get their news and form opinions from Facebook, X, TikTok and stuff like that – apparently 10 seconds means more than a 10 paragraph opinion piece – i think that is more shocking than paying a few dollars a month for decent content.