It does actually seem like it's only the US for now

Unless I've misunderstood your comment

BBC article:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2vgkn7w10o

Would not be surprised if it was not Thiel and gang ensuring only the billionaires newspapers are read by all us plebes by paying BBC to go paywall.

Al Bawaba used to do well also ...

$25 a month for the NYT.

What's the defaultism here?

The original title just said something like “BBC is now paywalled” making it sound like it applied to more than 1 of the 195 (worldometers.info recognised) countries in the world.

I’m not British but it’d be pretty alarming to hear that the BBC was adding a paywall that applied to the British if I was British

I asked OP to update the title in another comment which they did (and appreciate) but it made this comment of mine confusing . The original title didn’t have any mention of which country. It just said they were adding a paywall

Guess I’ll be using VPN

Makes sense, we pay our licence fee for our public service, why should people abroad get for free what we have to pay for?

I was happy with the current arrangement of adverts supporting the service use abroad, but if it has to migrate to a subscription model to meet modern demands then that's the way it is.

I wouldn't go to another country and ask them to make one of their government's national public services free for me to use, after all.

The world service was always free because it’s a propaganda platform that promotes Britain and British values abroad. I guess they are content just to push Reform propaganda to a domestic audience from now on.

Honestly this sucks balls for the US. One more credible news source made less accessible.

Although, you could also argue that those taxes pay for informing and influencing citizens of foreign nations.

America’s media ecosystem is dominated by Fox, Sinclair, and other state party media players. There is a strategic benefit to having a media outlet that doesn’t run through the state media filter.

Actually, the World Service will remain accessible, but that’s also not where most people go these days.

Any recommendations for a good replacement? I check BBC world on the daily but will be stopping as soon as this kicks in.

Seems like a high bar for checking the news. I'll just switch to a different news outlet.

Shame to further isolate the US towards the largely crappy intranational journalism options.

The Guardian isn't horrible, but not perfect. Reuters, if you squint, is pretty good 3/4 of the time. Propublica is great for investigative journalism. All of them have horrible headline writers at least half the time. Politico isn't worth checking, but every month or so, you might miss something. It's a mixed bag basically, so you have to check out a few.

I try to post the "real" stuff (not what trump says, but what he and the republicans are doing) on politics at sh.itjust.works on weekdays. It's US based and I'm anti-right.

Nah mate. Information is free the second it leaves its source. Any attempt to curtail it after then is just a cunt's trick.

As a Canadian, I'd be upset if we got paywalled. The BBC is where I go to for trusted news on international concerns.

Understandable, but I'd still be upset.

BBC shows ads on some foreign services, but not in the UK

The UK obviously is no longer a superpower. But the BBC is the cornerstone of the UKs modern global soft power projection. Broadcasting it free projects the UK government’s voice around the world directly into homes, influencing world policy to their liking.

Putting a paywall in the US sends a message that they feel it is not needed or not effective in the US market.

It also mirrors what paid sport broadcasting in the UK has done. Paywall it for short term gain, at the expense of long term viewership growth. The UK is struggling.