With information easier to access than ever before, a question presents itself: should you have to pay a monthly subscription for access to the news?

Many would give an immediate “no”, but not many people have taken a deep dive into why they say no. The most effective and rational way to come up with an answer is to take both sides of the argument and weigh them against each other. The world is often not black and white, and the same goes for this question.

Most news sites that have paywalls also run advertisements on their articles, but why would they need, on average, $28 a month and ads to keep their site running? Well they don’t have less bias, and they don’t have more articles, but they do have one thing going for them. The ads that they do have are few and far between, disrupting the reader less.

Many people acknowledge that free news sites bombard users with ads, and that the ads interrupt the reading of the article. With fewer ads on paywalled news sites, a reader’s experience is smoother and more enjoyable. The user can then know what is going on in the world more easily.

But is it worth the price? While $28 a month doesn’t seem so bad, it’s most important to get news from multiple sources for a better understanding. Many people who are struggling financially can’t afford to pay for multiple subscriptions, as the money is put to better use on debt, food, shelter, and gas. 

Because monthly subscriptions can place an unnecessary burden on people who are already overloaded, should paywalls become the norm, or should they be set aside as an option?

Knowledge about the world is something that is often taken for granted. Without it, how would humanity know how to govern itself? The information provided by news sites is essential to everyday life. 

The final question is, should people pay for this knowledge we have, or should people just use a free ad blocker?