While avoiding the "should this idea be implemented" question for a second, I'm wondering about the engineering issues here: is it more efficient to pay men for vasectomies or women for tied tubes.
Women are subject to meaningful rate limits. Ultimately the number of women determine the rate at which a population can reproduce.
A man can mate with many women, so eliminating a single man from the reproductive pool might have a significant impact. However, the women that man could impregnate might simply end up impregnated by someone else.
The news sites have made the economic calculation that allowing access to traffic from content aggregators like Google (which is the price of being discoverable by Google) is worthwhile.
The idea that only sufficiently large aggregators/traffic sources should get a special pass seems preposterous; anyone trying to enforce would be engaged in downright anticompetitive behavior.
The cat is already dead, can we please open the box & acknowledge the source of the foul smell?
It doesn't seem like it would be too much work to automate the paywall workaround by automatically redirecting people through Google. Is there a reason this isn't being done? Seems like better UX.
Women are subject to meaningful rate limits. Ultimately the number of women determine the rate at which a population can reproduce.
A man can mate with many women, so eliminating a single man from the reproductive pool might have a significant impact. However, the women that man could impregnate might simply end up impregnated by someone else.
Not entirely sure how to model this.