From Current Affairs:
Paywalls are justified, even though they are annoying. It costs money to produce good writing, to run a website, to license photographs. A lot of money, if you want quality. Asking people for a fee to access content is therefore very reasonable. You don’t expect to get a print subscription to the newspaper gratis, why would a website be different? I try not to grumble about having to pay for online content, because I run a magazine and I know how difficult it is to pay writers what they deserve.
But let us also notice something: the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Washington Post, the New Republic, New York, Harper’s, the New York Review of Books, the Financial Times, and the London Times all have paywalls. Breitbart, Fox News, the Daily Wire, the Federalist, the Washington Examiner, InfoWars: free! […] This doesn’t mean the paywall shouldn’t be there. But it does mean that it costs time and money to access a lot of true and important information, while a lot of bullshit is completely free.Emphasis mine.
I recall reading somewhere that folks in the lowest income tiers in the US had horrible diets. Not so much because they made bad choices, but because their options were limited to junk. McDonald’s will sell you a hamburger for a lot less (in time, money) than it costs to prepare a fresh salad or cook a healthy meal at home.
Whether it’s consuming a healthy diet of food, or news, the options which are quick, cheap, and convenient are often the ones which are bad for your personal wellbeing.