Reddit CEO Says Paywalls are Coming Soon

[vdeane]

How the heck can you possibly draw a distinction between these two ideas? Where does the point between "reward for doing a good job" and "overriding purpose above all else" exist?

The fact is that you just don't want to pay for Reddit and your trying to build a moral / philosophical argument against a potential paywall, but you just aren't being logical.

This isn't something I came up with recently to justify my position on Reddit.  It's something I've believed for years and just hasn't come up on the forum until now because it's usually most relevant in political discussions.  As far as where the line is, it would probably be in practice more of a judgement call based on how a company is behaving.  Are they being good corporate citizens with respect to their employees, their customers, their community, the environment, etc.?  Or are they paying low wages, have poor working conditions, poor customer service, polluting their surroundings, etc.?  Are cut costs over something obsolete, or something that's still being used by many people?  Are cut costs needed to continue operating, or are they to pad the profits of shareholders?  When they have a cash windfall, are they investing in the business, giving back to their workers, or using stock buy-backs to pump up their shareholder value?

There's enough obvious bad corporate behavior out there that I don't think anyone would be needing to go over anyone with a fine-toothed comb to differentiate any time soon; there are much bigger fish to fry than looking at non-obvious cases.

(incidentally, I also care far more about the possibility of having to be signed into an account to read Reddit than I do about paying for it)

*Automobiles are more expensive, but they are also way better now than they ever have been. Safer, more reliable, more "gadgets," etc.

*Movie theatres cost more, but have better seating options, and the sound and picture is better than ever.

*Phones are way more expensive than ever, but they do a million times more than the cell phones of decades ago.

I could list a dozen more if you want me to.

I'm curious if you're adjusting for inflation with these numbers, but to address the other end of the equation:
-While I would agree about cars if you're comparing to 50 years ago, I wouldn't for 10-15.  Modern safety "features" are often more annoyances than anything else, I don't want to have to use a touchscreen or voice commands, I'd rather control the heat/AC myself rather than have the car guess what I want from a temperature setting, I don't want "gadgets", I don't want surveillance, I don't want data sent to data brokers and/or insurance companies, etc.  My 2014 Civic is just about perfect and more or less what I want in a car.
-I'll give you the movie theaters.  The negatives are more a societal problem of people not being quiet and not the fault of the theaters.
-Phones are a tricky one.  My issues with them come down to what is essentially a fundamental part of what modern smart phones are.  I don't like how "Apps" usurped mobile sites (although they are sometimes necessary, such as the RSA Token app I need to sign in to my work accounts when offsite) and I don't like how the phones usurped desktops and laptops.  I also don't like how Apps act to scoop up data to be sold to who knows where.  I don't like how they're clearly listening in on people even though developers say they don't.  Again, probably more of a societal issue; while smartphones existed before the "App Store", they didn't take off until Apple made the store.  My ideal smartphone would probably be the very first iPhone, except on modern cell networks and running Linux.

[Max Rockatansky]

The domestic automotive market is over regulated and being choked by automakers only chasing high margin vehicles.  I don't know how anyone can look at what has happened this decade and see it as a step in the right direction for consumers.  You either get an expensive new car full of failure prone tech or overpay for something used from the previous two decades.  Sure, there are some relatively cheap options like the Corolla I just got but they are in dying market segments. 

[JayhawkCO]

The domestic automotive market is over regulated and being choked by automakers only chasing high margin vehicles.  I don't know how anyone can look at what has happened this decade and see it as a step in the right direction for consumers.  You either get an expensive new car full of failure prone tech or overpay for something used from the previous two decades.  Sure, there are some relatively cheap options like the Corolla I just got but they are in dying market segments. 

It feels like a lot of companies kind of forgot that you don't need all high margin stuff if you just sell a shit ton of volume. 5 cars at 10% is way worse than 50 cars at 1%.

[Max Rockatansky]

The domestic automotive market is over regulated and being choked by automakers only chasing high margin vehicles.  I don't know how anyone can look at what has happened this decade and see it as a step in the right direction for consumers.  You either get an expensive new car full of failure prone tech or overpay for something used from the previous two decades.  Sure, there are some relatively cheap options like the Corolla I just got but they are in dying market segments. 

It feels like a lot of companies kind of forgot that you don't need all high margin stuff if you just sell a shit ton of volume. 5 cars at 10% is way worse than 50 cars at 1%.

Especially the domestic automakers.  Yeah they lagged behind the Japanese automakers for decades on high volume small cars, but at least they offered something.  The trade off was that the domestic cars usually were a little cheaper up front and had more parts availability.  Now they pretty much abandoned all those vehicles and customers who bought them. 

Some familiar names like Corolla, Camry, Sentra, Accord and Civic were all the Top 25 for domestic sales last year.  All of those come from Japanese manufacturers.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g60385784/bestselling-cars-2024/

[JayhawkCO]

The domestic automotive market is over regulated and being choked by automakers only chasing high margin vehicles.  I don't know how anyone can look at what has happened this decade and see it as a step in the right direction for consumers.  You either get an expensive new car full of failure prone tech or overpay for something used from the previous two decades.  Sure, there are some relatively cheap options like the Corolla I just got but they are in dying market segments. 

It feels like a lot of companies kind of forgot that you don't need all high margin stuff if you just sell a shit ton of volume. 5 cars at 10% is way worse than 50 cars at 1%.

Especially the domestic automakers.  Yeah they lagged behind the Japanese automakers for decades on high volume small cars, but at least they offered something.  The trade off was that the domestic cars usually were a little cheaper up front and had more parts availability.  Now they pretty much abandoned all those vehicles and customers who bought them. 

Some familiar names like Corolla, Camry, Sentra, Accord and Civic were all the Top 25 for domestic sales last year.  All of those come from Japanese manufacturers.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g60385784/bestselling-cars-2024/

And to specify why I said 5@10% is worse than 50@1%, it's because you remove the demand from your competitors while making the same amount of money.

[formulanone]

The domestic automotive market is over regulated and being choked by automakers only chasing high margin vehicles.  I don't know how anyone can look at what has happened this decade and see it as a step in the right direction for consumers.  You either get an expensive new car full of failure prone tech or overpay for something used from the previous two decades.  Sure, there are some relatively cheap options like the Corolla I just got but they are in dying market segments. 

It feels like a lot of companies kind of forgot that you don't need all high margin stuff if you just sell a shit ton of volume. 5 cars at 10% is way worse than 50 cars at 1%.

There's a lot more paperwork involved to try to chase 1% margins. 1% profit on a $40,000 vehicle is 400.00; that doesn't really cover much in the way of operating expenses and floorplans, let alone giving anyone a meaningful cut of the sales.

And if you're going to actually sell that many vehicles, you need the additional personnel to deal with preparation and sales taking 2-8 hours of time from "just looking" to "say bye-bye to your trade".

In my industry, 5% is seen as a low margin for that reason.

[JayhawkCO]

The domestic automotive market is over regulated and being choked by automakers only chasing high margin vehicles.  I don't know how anyone can look at what has happened this decade and see it as a step in the right direction for consumers.  You either get an expensive new car full of failure prone tech or overpay for something used from the previous two decades.  Sure, there are some relatively cheap options like the Corolla I just got but they are in dying market segments. 

It feels like a lot of companies kind of forgot that you don't need all high margin stuff if you just sell a shit ton of volume. 5 cars at 10% is way worse than 50 cars at 1%.

There's a lot more paperwork involved to try to chase 1% margins. 1% profit on a $40,000 vehicle is 400.00; that doesn't really cover much in the way of operating expenses and floorplans, let alone giving anyone a meaningful cut of the sales.

And if you're going to actually sell that many vehicles, you need the additional personnel to deal with preparation and sales taking 2-8 hours of time from "just looking" to "say bye-bye to your trade".

In my industry, 5% is seen as a low margin for that reason.

See my comment right above yours to help me to explain my point of view.

And for the record, I'm well aware the margins are greater than 1% (or 10% for that matter). I was just demonstrating my opinion with random numbers.

[kalvado]

How the heck can you possibly draw a distinction between these two ideas? Where does the point between "reward for doing a good job" and "overriding purpose above all else" exist?

The fact is that you just don't want to pay for Reddit and your trying to build a moral / philosophical argument against a potential paywall, but you just aren't being logical.

This isn't something I came up with recently to justify my position on Reddit.  It's something I've believed for years and just hasn't come up on the forum until now because it's usually most relevant in political discussions.  As far as where the line is, it would probably be in practice more of a judgement call based on how a company is behaving.  Are they being good corporate citizens with respect to their employees, their customers, their community, the environment, etc.?  Or are they paying low wages, have poor working conditions, poor customer service, polluting their surroundings, etc.?  Are cut costs over something obsolete, or something that's still being used by many people?  Are cut costs needed to continue operating, or are they to pad the profits of shareholders?  When they have a cash windfall, are they investing in the business, giving back to their workers, or using stock buy-backs to pump up their shareholder value?

There's enough obvious bad corporate behavior out there that I don't think anyone would be needing to go over anyone with a fine-toothed comb to differentiate any time soon; there are much bigger fish to fry than looking at non-obvious cases.

(incidentally, I also care far more about the possibility of having to be signed into an account to read Reddit than I do about paying for it)

With such an approach... Be prepared to submit for a background and credit check before being allowed to shop for groceries in any given store. A separate one for each store. Add fingerprinting for each restaurant order.

[SEWIGuy]

This isn't something I came up with recently to justify my position on Reddit.  It's something I've believed for years and just hasn't come up on the forum until now because it's usually most relevant in political discussions.  As far as where the line is, it would probably be in practice more of a judgement call based on how a company is behaving.  Are they being good corporate citizens with respect to their employees, their customers, their community, the environment, etc.?  Or are they paying low wages, have poor working conditions, poor customer service, polluting their surroundings, etc.?  Are cut costs over something obsolete, or something that's still being used by many people?  Are cut costs needed to continue operating, or are they to pad the profits of shareholders?  When they have a cash windfall, are they investing in the business, giving back to their workers, or using stock buy-backs to pump up their shareholder value?

So what if Reddit was doing everything positive that you outline above...and still creates a paywall?

[kphoger]

"Where to find a cute plus-size swimsuit for large breasted woman?".  It's where to find the opinions of real life normal people.

Normal people get called on to help large-breasted women pick out cute swimsuits often enough to have opinions on the best places to find them? Huh, I guess there are some perks to being normal, then...

Huh?  No, I mean it's a place that a large-breasted woman can get recommendations from other normal large-breasted women.  That is to say, not an online article written by who-know-who ranking the best swimsuits for large-breasted women, but the opinions of normal women who actually buy and wear swimsuits.

Maybe you thought I was saying large-breasted women are not normal people.  I wasn't saying that at all.

[kphoger]

I think at this point it's coming down to the two of us having irreconcilably different fundamental beliefs.  As far as I'm concerned, the function businesses play in society is to provide goods and services to citizens.  Making money should be merely their reward for doing a good job at that, not their overriding purpose above all else.  You clearly take a different view on that.

How the heck can you possibly draw a distinction between these two ideas? Where does the point between "reward for doing a good job" and "overriding purpose above all else" exist?

I agree, to an extent.  While companies certainly might and do chase the almighty dollar over providing a valuable service to the community, I'd say it's quite common for a company do have both goals at the same time.  I'd say it's quite common for a company to want both well-treated employees and also high profits.

Just spit-balling, but maybe the function workers play in society is to provide goods and services to the other citizens—whereas the function companies play in society is to provide those citizens with a stable environment in which to fulfil that role.  And, when it comes to a company, stability and profit are inherently linked.

[vdeane]

How the heck can you possibly draw a distinction between these two ideas? Where does the point between "reward for doing a good job" and "overriding purpose above all else" exist?

The fact is that you just don't want to pay for Reddit and your trying to build a moral / philosophical argument against a potential paywall, but you just aren't being logical.

This isn't something I came up with recently to justify my position on Reddit.  It's something I've believed for years and just hasn't come up on the forum until now because it's usually most relevant in political discussions.  As far as where the line is, it would probably be in practice more of a judgement call based on how a company is behaving.  Are they being good corporate citizens with respect to their employees, their customers, their community, the environment, etc.?  Or are they paying low wages, have poor working conditions, poor customer service, polluting their surroundings, etc.?  Are cut costs over something obsolete, or something that's still being used by many people?  Are cut costs needed to continue operating, or are they to pad the profits of shareholders?  When they have a cash windfall, are they investing in the business, giving back to their workers, or using stock buy-backs to pump up their shareholder value?

There's enough obvious bad corporate behavior out there that I don't think anyone would be needing to go over anyone with a fine-toothed comb to differentiate any time soon; there are much bigger fish to fry than looking at non-obvious cases.

(incidentally, I also care far more about the possibility of having to be signed into an account to read Reddit than I do about paying for it)

With such an approach... Be prepared to submit for a background and credit check before being allowed to shop for groceries in any given store. A separate one for each store. Add fingerprinting for each restaurant order.

Why?

This isn't something I came up with recently to justify my position on Reddit.  It's something I've believed for years and just hasn't come up on the forum until now because it's usually most relevant in political discussions.  As far as where the line is, it would probably be in practice more of a judgement call based on how a company is behaving.  Are they being good corporate citizens with respect to their employees, their customers, their community, the environment, etc.?  Or are they paying low wages, have poor working conditions, poor customer service, polluting their surroundings, etc.?  Are cut costs over something obsolete, or something that's still being used by many people?  Are cut costs needed to continue operating, or are they to pad the profits of shareholders?  When they have a cash windfall, are they investing in the business, giving back to their workers, or using stock buy-backs to pump up their shareholder value?

So what if Reddit was doing everything positive that you outline above...and still creates a paywall?

That would still be taking something that's currently free, and used by millions of people, and making it pay, and not only that, degrading the experience of citizens by making it so that you need to be signed into an account to browse, so it would be no bueno.  Not budging on that.  If they wanted to monetize in that way, they should have told everyone from the get-go (even if they were free then, there should have been a prominent notice of "service is free for X time, after which we will charge $Y").

Didn't we go over this already?  I feel like a broken record.

[SEWIGuy]

How the heck can you possibly draw a distinction between these two ideas? Where does the point between "reward for doing a good job" and "overriding purpose above all else" exist?

The fact is that you just don't want to pay for Reddit and your trying to build a moral / philosophical argument against a potential paywall, but you just aren't being logical.

This isn't something I came up with recently to justify my position on Reddit.  It's something I've believed for years and just hasn't come up on the forum until now because it's usually most relevant in political discussions.  As far as where the line is, it would probably be in practice more of a judgement call based on how a company is behaving.  Are they being good corporate citizens with respect to their employees, their customers, their community, the environment, etc.?  Or are they paying low wages, have poor working conditions, poor customer service, polluting their surroundings, etc.?  Are cut costs over something obsolete, or something that's still being used by many people?  Are cut costs needed to continue operating, or are they to pad the profits of shareholders?  When they have a cash windfall, are they investing in the business, giving back to their workers, or using stock buy-backs to pump up their shareholder value?

There's enough obvious bad corporate behavior out there that I don't think anyone would be needing to go over anyone with a fine-toothed comb to differentiate any time soon; there are much bigger fish to fry than looking at non-obvious cases.

(incidentally, I also care far more about the possibility of having to be signed into an account to read Reddit than I do about paying for it)

With such an approach... Be prepared to submit for a background and credit check before being allowed to shop for groceries in any given store. A separate one for each store. Add fingerprinting for each restaurant order.

Why?

This isn't something I came up with recently to justify my position on Reddit.  It's something I've believed for years and just hasn't come up on the forum until now because it's usually most relevant in political discussions.  As far as where the line is, it would probably be in practice more of a judgement call based on how a company is behaving.  Are they being good corporate citizens with respect to their employees, their customers, their community, the environment, etc.?  Or are they paying low wages, have poor working conditions, poor customer service, polluting their surroundings, etc.?  Are cut costs over something obsolete, or something that's still being used by many people?  Are cut costs needed to continue operating, or are they to pad the profits of shareholders?  When they have a cash windfall, are they investing in the business, giving back to their workers, or using stock buy-backs to pump up their shareholder value?

So what if Reddit was doing everything positive that you outline above...and still creates a paywall?

That would still be taking something that's currently free, and used by millions of people, and making it pay, and not only that, degrading the experience of citizens by making it so that you need to be signed into an account to browse, so it would be no bueno.  Not budging on that.  If they wanted to monetize in that way, they should have told everyone from the get-go (even if they were free then, there should have been a prominent notice of "service is free for X time, after which we will charge $Y").

Didn't we go over this already?  I feel like a broken record.

Well you brought up a ton of stuff in your paragraph above...but somehow forgot to include "can't charge for something that once was free." lol.

I take it that logic really isn't a strong suit of yours.

[vdeane]

Well you brought up a ton of stuff in your paragraph above...but somehow forgot to include "can't charge for something that once was free." lol.

I take it that logic really isn't a strong suit of yours.

So I have to restate everything I previously said whenever I reply to you?  What the actual fuck?

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.

[Scott5114]

So I have to restate everything I previously said whenever I reply to you?  What the actual fuck?

The longer the quote, the happier the goat!

[kkt]

Reddit is practically an institution at this point.  It going behind a paywall would be a fundamental change in the way people use the internet.  Well, it certainly would be for me, anyways.  I'd have to get an account (which would increase my time commitment, since then I'd feel more obligated to keep up with things), and browsing without an account would be a thing of the past.  The tendency of Reddit mods to ban people at the drop of a hat would also be a bigger deal, since being able to browse without an account would be no more.  Where would I go?  Internet forums are practically dead outside of this one, and I don't know enough people who share my interests and tendency for deep discussion to keep me happy.  And I'd have to find something else to do with my time.

The world has built itself around a free Reddit.  Heck, just look at the number of people who end up appending "site:reddit.com" to the end of their searches to get more useful results.  I do it all the time.  It's pretty much required if you want advise or thoughts from regular people and not some watered-down corporate article that might not even be on what you really want.

Like it or not, people have built up an expectation of Reddit being free from more than a decade of history of it being so, with no indication that it would ever be otherwise.

Yes. It would be annoying and inconvenient if Reddit would be put behind a paywall.

But nothing you are describing above comes close to "morally repugnant" or "should be illegal." Perspective would be nice.

Really?  I don't participate in Reddit but it comes up as Google results a lot.  I found the results there often unreliable - fringe minority opinion not marked as such, or outdated or just plain wrong.  No way will I pay to read results there.

[kkt]

Do you think computers would have ever reached a level of complexity and efficiency even close to where they are now if the companies developing them couldn't make profit?

A lot of the early work on computers was done under Department of Defense contracts that allowed the companies to make money even if their lines of research and development came to nothing.  Profits in the commercial world came much later.

[kkt]

However that still doesn't prove the original point that profit incentives never make a difference for any product.

It might, but it's so hard to come up with a recent example nobody has done so...

*Automobiles are more expensive, but they are also way better now than they ever have been. Safer, more reliable, more "gadgets," etc.

*Movie theatres cost more, but have better seating options, and the sound and picture is better than ever.

*Phones are way more expensive than ever, but they do a million times more than the cell phones of decades ago.

I could list a dozen more if you want me to.

I would argue with all of those.

Cars reached their pinacle with the Japanese late 1990s models, for economy, safety, and reliability.  Later models feature fancy electronics nobody should be looking at while they are operating a motor vehicle, and make the car as a whole less reliable.  In addition to mechanical sources of breakdown, now all the electronics may make key features not work - like one of my car's electronics modules failed one, which didn't strand me exactly but the headlights wouldn't come on and it was night and I really wanted to get home.  And later, of course, the dealer could not replicate the problem so I'll never know when it might happen again.

Movies that appeal to people over 16 don't even seem to be made anymore.  Massive special effects explosions are apparently more reliable profit centers than good writers.

Phone have a lot of fancy features but fail on reliability.  They are deliberately made to smash if dropped from a hand onto a paved surface, in a triumph of planned obsolescence.  There are cases that can protect them - but they make an already bulky thing to carry around even more bulky, and why doesn't the phone have a case that protects it included?  You have to buy a new one for every phone, for more planned obsolescence.  They still suck up battery charges in a matter of hours, and reception outside cities or during times of stress like natural disasters you may not be able to get through at all.  And they are still an Orwellian dream for tracking where everyone is and what they're doing.

[Rothman]

Movies that appeal to people over 16 don't even seem to be made anymore.  Massive special effects explosions are apparently more reliable profit centers than good writers.

What a ridiculous statement.  Seems to reflect willful ignorance of the broader availability of movies nowadays rather than reality.  Simply because action movies are bringing in the big bucks doesn't mean there aren't movies being produced for "adults."  More movies are being produced now than there ever were yesteryear, especially through streaming.

[kalvado]

With such an approach... Be prepared to submit for a background and credit check before being allowed to shop for groceries in any given store. A separate one for each store. Add fingerprinting for each restaurant order.

Why?

If you care that much about the moral aspect of business, it would only be responsible for the business to care about the morality of the customer. Since there is no social score system yet, using credit rating and criminal record may be appropriate. Actually banks are legally turning down customers with low credit rating, so it should be somewhat legal.
A minimum of 720 to shop Trader Joe and 700 for Hannaford should be about right, maybe? Otherwise go to Walmart!

PS happy goat have eaten quote format!

[JayhawkCO]

With such an approach... Be prepared to submit for a background and credit check before being allowed to shop for groceries in any given store. A separate one for each store. Add fingerprinting for each restaurant order.

Why?

If you care that much about the moral aspect of business, it would only be responsible for the business to care about the morality of the customer. Since there is no social score system yet, using credit rating and criminal record may be appropriate. Actually banks are legally turning down customers with low credit rating, so it should be somewhat legal.
A minimum of 720 to shop Trader Joe and 700 for Hannaford should be about right, maybe? Otherwise go to Walmart!

PS happy goat have eaten quote format!

Having a credit score be equitable to a morality score is some dystopian shit.

[SEWIGuy]

However that still doesn't prove the original point that profit incentives never make a difference for any product.

It might, but it's so hard to come up with a recent example nobody has done so...

*Automobiles are more expensive, but they are also way better now than they ever have been. Safer, more reliable, more "gadgets," etc.

*Movie theatres cost more, but have better seating options, and the sound and picture is better than ever.

*Phones are way more expensive than ever, but they do a million times more than the cell phones of decades ago.

I could list a dozen more if you want me to.

I would argue with all of those.

Cars reached their pinacle with the Japanese late 1990s models, for economy, safety, and reliability.  Later models feature fancy electronics nobody should be looking at while they are operating a motor vehicle, and make the car as a whole less reliable.  In addition to mechanical sources of breakdown, now all the electronics may make key features not work - like one of my car's electronics modules failed one, which didn't strand me exactly but the headlights wouldn't come on and it was night and I really wanted to get home.  And later, of course, the dealer could not replicate the problem so I'll never know when it might happen again.

Cars are more reliable now than they ever have been. This is just a fact.

Movies that appeal to people over 16 don't even seem to be made anymore.  Massive special effects explosions are apparently more reliable profit centers than good writers.

Movies that appeal to people over 16 don't even seem to be made anymore.  Massive special effects explosions are apparently more reliable profit centers than good writers.

That's not really the point of my statement, but OK.

Phone have a lot of fancy features but fail on reliability.  They are deliberately made to smash if dropped from a hand onto a paved surface, in a triumph of planned obsolescence.  There are cases that can protect them - but they make an already bulky thing to carry around even more bulky, and why doesn't the phone have a case that protects it included?  You have to buy a new one for every phone, for more planned obsolescence.  They still suck up battery charges in a matter of hours, and reception outside cities or during times of stress like natural disasters you may not be able to get through at all.  And they are still an Orwellian dream for tracking where everyone is and what they're doing.

Ever drop a flip phone? They broke way more easier than an iPhone. Not even close.

Anyway, the phones of today are simply better. They do more. If you want to stick with old technology and a phone than pretty much is only good for calling and rudamentary texting, that's fine, but that is simply not a better phone.

Anyway, you sound like someone who is just engaged in flowery thinking about a bygone era.

[SEWIGuy]

Reddit is practically an institution at this point.  It going behind a paywall would be a fundamental change in the way people use the internet.  Well, it certainly would be for me, anyways.  I'd have to get an account (which would increase my time commitment, since then I'd feel more obligated to keep up with things), and browsing without an account would be a thing of the past.  The tendency of Reddit mods to ban people at the drop of a hat would also be a bigger deal, since being able to browse without an account would be no more.  Where would I go?  Internet forums are practically dead outside of this one, and I don't know enough people who share my interests and tendency for deep discussion to keep me happy.  And I'd have to find something else to do with my time.

The world has built itself around a free Reddit.  Heck, just look at the number of people who end up appending "site:reddit.com" to the end of their searches to get more useful results.  I do it all the time.  It's pretty much required if you want advise or thoughts from regular people and not some watered-down corporate article that might not even be on what you really want.

Like it or not, people have built up an expectation of Reddit being free from more than a decade of history of it being so, with no indication that it would ever be otherwise.

Yes. It would be annoying and inconvenient if Reddit would be put behind a paywall.

But nothing you are describing above comes close to "morally repugnant" or "should be illegal." Perspective would be nice.

Really?  I don't participate in Reddit but it comes up as Google results a lot.  I found the results there often unreliable - fringe minority opinion not marked as such, or outdated or just plain wrong.  No way will I pay to read results there.

Then don't. I won't either.

But it's not "morally repugnant" if they do so. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a company charging for its product.

[thspfc]

Why would a business care about a customer's morals? That could only ever lose them money. Except for maybe mortgages, cars, and predatory private lending.

[hotdogPi]

An iPhone or its Android equivalent is more advanced than a flip phone. There's no question here.

I didn't notice that much difference between an iPhone SE (between 5 and 6) and my current iPhone 13; as I mentioned before, the two main differences I noticed were more storage and better camera zoom. In addition, loading an app with data was slow (4 minutes for a biweekly update for a Candy Crush clone) with my old phone, but if I was using my home wifi, it would be almost immediate just like my current phone downloads apps under any data or wifi. "Dead spots" where I can't get signal have not improved with the phone upgrade, even though my new phone is 5G and my old phone was 4G LTE.

The first iPhone was in 2007, so 2010, plus or minus a few years, definitely seems to be a turning point here.