I always thought that if I ever became Twitter’s villain of the hour, I would do it for something far more controversial.
Last week — after months of reporting, writing, editing (and more editing) — I published “Ms Rachel Is Singing Through It,” a profile of Rachel Acurso, or as millions of kids know her, Ms. Rachel. The profile, which appears in the October 2026 issue of Rolling Stone, talks through Acurso’s journey to millions of YouTube subscribers and how her decision to speak out against violence, poverty, and disenfranchisement of children, particularly those in Gaza, has turned her life as a public figure into a melee of controversy.
I posted the article on Instagram, Threads, TikTok, and Twitter, with copy modified to abide by each platform’s character limits. But my revelation that it was one of the hardest things I’ve ever written and this sentence — “Her stance on Gaza has drawn outrage and adoration— but can her private life survive the public scrutiny?” — started a firestorm on Twitter. People accused me of writing a hit piece on Acurso, then making a clickbaity tweet to make people think it was a hit piece, then of being a Zionist determined to harm the public standing of celebrities who are outspoken about Palestine by writing something with a paywall that could have been a hit piece.
It’s unsurprising to me that the app decimated by Elon Musk and dominated by outrage cycles was where my words were taken with the least amount of good faith; especially when the same language was primarily well received on other apps. But what fascinated me is that the drama, outrage, and countless slurs in both my comments and private messages all coalesced around one thing: the paywall. It matches a belief that’s become increasingly apparent to me as a digital culture reporter. The internet’s next great fight is with the paywall — and it’s a battle every party is wildly unprepared for.
Most internet users know that paywalls are models that place magazine articles, lists, and even music behind barriers people need to pay to access. You pay the fee, most commonly by signing up for a subscription, and you can read the piece. The vast amount of paywalls has created a frustrating ecosystem for digital news, where it feels like reading everything would legitimately take spending $200 a month — which doesn’t even take into account individual subscriptions on sites like Substack of Patreon. Even I admit I’ve been there — intrigued by a Vulture headline or a new celebrity Q&A only to read three sentences and then hit an immediate paywall. (My best solution for this so far has been an Apple News subscription; although it isn’t perfect.)
But in our current literacy crisis, paywalls have become more than annoyances. Many paywall critics consider them exclusionary practices, barriers that mean only wealthy readers are afforded the privilege about being informed and up-to-date. It’s a rich vs poor debate — one where poor income readers, who one could argue need information about politics and national news the most, say they’re priced out of information.
Paywall supporters, or at least, reluctant users, argue that the models are one of the only ways to support journalists monetarily. Because ad schemes are constantly changing, modern newspapers and magazines use subscription models to pay their writers. These metrics, including clicks on articles, inform everything from coverage to who’s allowed to write what. They also help make newsrooms profitable, allowing journalists to keep researching and reporting, especially on stories that take more time.
An increasingly common practice is to remove paywalls from necessary or urgent matters. In 2025, Wired and 404 Media announced they were removing the paywall from all articles based on FOIA reporting — and encouraged other outlets to do the same. This allows people to access news on the public records they’re legally entitled to, while still encouraging repeat users to subscribe to the site and help fund it. Most news sites like CNN, The New York Times, the L.A. Times also drop paywalls on information surrounding national emergencies, like floods, wildfires, hurricanes, or pandemics.
But in recent years, the decision over what exactly is urgent has shifted. Public interest isn’t just about library closures, immigration bills, or evacuation routes any more. Internet users have displayed a level of entitlement over everything from photoshoots to Q&As to celebrity profiles — all under the argument that they’re necessary information. It’s an elevation of information while devaluing the people that made it possible. How do I know this? Because the most valuable players in online news, like PopBase and PopCrave, all operate by stealing journalists’ work. It’s aggregation without — most of the time — any attribution. It’s why you’ll see journalists begging under aggregation accounts all the time for them to post the link to their story. I myself have had stories go viral online via screenshots, and then gotten nothing through actual clicks; making it hard for editors to justify me writing about the topic again.
Audiences and newsrooms are unprepared to handle the paywall battle because the end result of its current handling is a situation where everyone loses. If paywalls continue to push readers away, more people will try to bypass them, sharing information in ways where there’s no credit and few places for fact checking. There’s a clear fatigue that at the same time newsrooms are begging for audience attention, they’re seemingly pushing it away by paywalling their content. But if journalists lose funding, audiences will suffer — because it means less reporting and more AI slop, SEO explainers, and basic, uninspired news.
Knowledge vs. access vs. compensation. These concerns are what make paywalls so complicated — and what clearly prove the debate will keep going for years. But what my own experience with paywall backlash reemphasized for me is that some of the loudest critics don’t see reporting as labor at all. They see journalists and writers as obstacles, standing in the way of what they already believe. It’s why people were upset that I said writing my article was hard and it’s why they chastised me for assuming people would read past the paywall or even click on the article. Because they didn’t see my article as work.
It’s not up to readers to solve an entire industry’s problems. (In fact, that would be a crazy assumption.) But the battle for literacy and a more informed public can’t be won until the same people demanding information actually value it — and its source — in the first place.
You can read my Ms. Rachel piece here or purchase an Oct 2026 issue of Rolling Stone - out on newsstands soon.
well said, thank you for writing this. the viral screenshot culture thing is a scourge.
I'm actually not against people finding ways to hop our paywall if they really must, but I do draw the line at replying or quote tweeting *my own social post* with an archive link our paywalled stories. that's always so wild to me.
also small note, 404's FOIA-based reporting has been paywall-free since we launched in 2023 :) it's cool to see big outlets being creative and thoughtful about when (and when not) to wall.
I’m a local journalist writing a daily civic newsletter covering city hall meetings and events. We’ve never had a paywall. Yet, the local equivalent of news “aggregators” are real estate agents who steal reporting (and sometimes my photos!) and get thousands of views.
There is 0 barrier to entry for people for our work, you don’t even need to provide an email to read. But people literally just don’t want to read lol
I’m most bothered by the audacity of it, not the views. Because I know those views and engagement are almost entirely low quality and won’t result in paid subscribers.
I get really fed up in the paywall discussion, so I found your writing extremely refreshing.
This part especially: “ the loudest critics don’t see reporting as labor at all. They see journalists and writers as obstacles, standing in the way of what they already believe. It’s why people were upset that I said writing my article was hard and it’s why they chastised me for assuming people would read past the paywall or even click on the article. Because they didn’t see my article as work.” Much to think about!