we never needed online

well, sort of

David Dennis via Wikimedia Commons

I’m not really sure if this is an unpopular opinion or not. But since, I would guess, at least 2015 I’ve operated under the basic assumption that the world of “online” has little to offer writers or publications in terms of reach or money.

Not nothing—I don’t think I’d have had a career without it—but not nearly enough to justify the amount of effort that’s been put into them. Harper’s, Wall Street Journal, and the Financial Times, by simply refusing to do the free content thing, by never really trying to be accessible, probably made the right call. What “online” offers to writers (and to lesser extent editors) is primarily emotional: you work on a piece and you get to see it move around. People talk about it. People talk about you. That’s a nice feeling. Or, you know, it can be a bad feeling, depending on what you’re seeing.