Web sites trade links as currency, pointing readers' attention to valuable content. Meanwhile, a network of independent curators has sprung up on sites like Twitter and Facebook, directing those valuable clicks to handpicked sources. By creating uncertainty about whether those links will work for all visitors (readers might have used up their metered allowance for the month), The Times will dissuade the sharing of links on blogs and social networks. Popular blogs like ours will seek out other sources to link to, concerned about directing readers to inaccessible pages.

Cashmore states that the Times' proposed paywall is a "step back" but I would argue that they are at least attempting to innovate in a way that also brings them revenue (can you blame them?). This isn't a return to the fee structure of Times Select - they are spending an entire year to come up with a smart way of implementing this new form of revenue stream all while maintaining one of if not the most innovative news websites in the world.

I don't think the Times wants to "dissuade the sharing of links," either. They've been very clear about still being quite open to casual readers and I think they'll find a way for link sharing to be a big part of that.

Being upset about having to pay for something that once was free is one thing, but equating that to lack of innovation? These are two entirely separate issues.