|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Dear reader:
I have two big changes to announce. Both will grow the strength and sustainability of the Vermont Daily Chronicle and the Burlington Daily News. First the….
Bad News…. Beginning January 1, 2026, only Sustaining Subscribers may comment on news articles and commentary. And, also on January 1, 2026, the price of a Sustaining Subscription will increase from $108 to $132 annually, and from $9 to $11 monthly. Now for the….
Good News! Sustaining Subscribers who lock in for 2026 before January 1 will pay the current rate of $108 and may write comments through all 12 months of 2026. All readers, Sustaining Subscribers or not, may read all news, commentary and comments – keeping a promise I made in 2017 when I started VDC.
To contribute $9 monthly on a recurring basis, please click here.
To contribute $108 for one annual Sustaining Subscription, please click here.
To contribute $216 for two annual Sustaining Subscriptions, please click here.
Checks may be mailed to: Vermont Daily Chronicle, P.O. Box 1547, Montpelier, Vermont, 05601. If you have any questions, please email us at news@vermontdailychronicle.com.
Why we’re doing this. We increasing the Sustaining Subscription price for the first time ever, and making it a condition for writing comments, because the cost of publishing VDC has grown significantly every year. I’ve discovered that the more news you publish and send to more people more often, the more it costs! Also, our hard-working staff members need to buy groceries and sleep soundly under dry roofs. We all know how those expenses have increased.
Keeping our promise. When I started publishing VDC in 2017, I promised to always keep it free to read. And so it will be as long as I’m in charge.
But commenting is different. It gives you a valuable platform you would not otherwise enjoy without our huge commitment of time and treasure. As a practical matter most regular VDC commenters already are sustaining subscribers, so I don’t anticipate much hardship.
We’re growing – please help us continue. In 2025, VDC produced more news, commentary, and multimedia than ever before—and reached a larger audience than at any point in our history. Through November 21, we have already logged a record 2.3 million views on VermontDailyChronicle.com. BurlingtonDailyNews.net also has reached record numbers of readers.
This year we have expanded in new directions. While temporarily backburnering our video podcasts, we’ve launched Hot Off The Press, a Monday-Friday radio show on WDEV bringing VDC reporting, interviews, and commentary to a far broader audience. A new radio and/or video initiative may debut soon.
If you are not among the hundreds of supportive, encouraging Vermonters contributing $9/month online or $108 annually online or by check, please invest in our shared hope for 2026.
We also warmly welcome your ideas, comments, questions, and testimonials at news@vermontdailychronicle.com.
Blessings,
Free Speech Forever,
Guy Page
Editor and Publisher
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Letter from the Publisher
You folks do a great job.
Your effort is much appreciated.
Thank you.
Meiselman34@gmail.com
Thanks Guy…..I did the two subscriptions…..so much appreciate all you do.
I hope others contribute generously, nothing is free….and we need a free speech format in our state, surely………
Should i continual to subscribe to VDC or should i take that money and plant a bigger garden???? DRIP, DRIP, DRIP and the Epstein soap opera drama keeps me entertained. DRIP, DRIP, DRIP.
“Put your money where your mouth is.”
Blessings, Free Speech Forever, or ‘pay to play’?
As Guy knows, I’ve been a supporter of VDC for years. But semantics has been, and apparently continues to be, an issue.
What does ‘free’ really mean.
Constitutionally, free speech is protected by the First Amendment. We are ‘free’ to say whatever we like… as long as we accept repsonsibility for any adverse consequences that occur.
In this case ‘free’ does not mean ‘free of charge’. And while I see many podcasts and podcasters limiting free expression based on adhereing to a paywall,
Question: Is there a conflict of interest when a publication, inviting commentary under the guise of advocating for free speech, allows only those who pay a fee to comment?
Yes, there is a clear conflict of interest—and more precisely, a contradiction—when a publication or platform loudly champions “free speech” as a core principle while simultaneously restricting who can speak (e.g., post comments, reply, or participate in the conversation) to only those who pay a subscription fee. Here’s why:
Free speech vs. paywalled speech
“Free speech” traditionally means the ability to express oneself without government censorship or prior restraint. In the private-sector context (especially online platforms), it has come to mean “we won’t silence or deplatform you for your views.” Charging money to allow someone to speak turns speech from a right (or at least an open privilege) into a commodity. That directly contradicts the plain meaning of “free” in “free speech.”
The bait-and-switch problem:
When an outlet markets itself as a bastion of open discourse—“the town square,” “where free speech lives,” “unlike those censored legacy platforms”—but then erects a paywall around the very act of participating, it is engaging in false advertising of its own principles. Readers are lured in with the promise of unfettered debate, only to discover that the microphone is for sale.
Selective amplification:
Pay-to-comment systems inherently favor those who can afford the fee. This creates a skewed discourse where wealth, not argument quality or representativeness, determines who gets heard. A platform can still claim “we’re not censoring anyone” (technically true—no one is banned for ideology), yet it has replaced ideological censorship with financial censorship. The outcome is similar: certain voices are systematically excluded.
Real-world examples:
X (formerly Twitter) under Elon Musk introduced paid blue-check verification and, for a period, prioritized replies from paying users and briefly floated (then abandoned) ideas of charging everyone to post. Critics immediately called this “pay-to-speak,” incompatible with the “free speech” branding.
Substack Notes, some paid newsletters, and certain news-site comment sections (e.g., some implementations by The Atlantic, New York Times experiments, or smaller outlets) gate comments behind subscriptions. When those same outlets write editorials defending free expression, the hypocrisy is pointed out.
Possible counter-arguments (and why they’re weak)
“It’s a private company; they can do what they want.” → True, but irrelevant to the charge of hypocrisy. A private company can still contradict its own stated values.
“Someone has to pay for servers and moderation.” → Also true, but there are other revenue models (ads, donations, voluntary tipping, one-time micropayments) that don’t make the act of speaking itself a paid privilege.
“Free users can still read and post elsewhere.” → This dodges the issue: the platform branded itself as the primary home of open debate, then monetized participation.
Bottom line:
If a publication or platform wants to charge for enhanced visibility, priority, or perks, fine—but it should drop the “free speech absolutist” rhetoric. Claiming to be the great defender of open discourse while selling the microphone is a straightforward conflict between proclaimed principles and actual practice. It’s not illegal, it’s not even uncommon, but it is hypocritical.
Or you can go to FB, where, under the auspices of free speech, you (your data) become the product.
Or you can go to VT Public, with its robust comments section (cough cough).
Or VT Digger, or FPF, or any other joke of a media organization in the state. How about the Reformer? No comments section? Gee, I wonder why.
I had a paper route. People subscribed to the newspaper, and I would collect.
It’s a different landscape now, obviously; and with this pay-to-comment policy, we will miss the non-subscribers who wade in and, amusingly, get checked on the narratives they had assumed they could reiterate with impunity.
But I understand. Journalists who don’t sell subscribers’ data are definitely not getting rich.
Also, at this point, perhaps being able to look in and comment ad-free with a subscription would be a tenable path.
Maybe when it gets big enough, he could lower the price of admission, getting closer to free in cost. Vermont has been suckered into everything being free, which is the marxist cheese in the trap, free schools, free health care, free college, free, this and that…how’s it working out for us?
Things get the most expensive when they are free. Most controlled when they are free. Most censored when they are free. Most intrusive and constrictive when they are free, look at “free face book”……which monitors, censors and deplatforms people and throttles back their reach!
Is it perfect? No…..perhaps he could offer a one month commenting period…..which people could afford. It would be nice to have articles up for bid, stories to cover based upon interest of the readers. The real issues of Vermont are not changing for the better. I think he might get some really good sums of money for example to investigate Bernie Sanders and the Venezuelan/Mamdani/voting machine connections……..there is something in there, it’s not all coincidences. Just to have an interview of Guy asking Bernie the questions would be worth the price of admission.
Does the price of admission rule out everyone? How many people would it rule out that are interested in commenting? Does it rule out trolls? How about bots?
Personally, there could be more expensive sponsorships to support, but then people might wonder about allegiance. I don’t think Guy would sell out for a $1,000 or a few thousand dollars. Perhaps more marketing swag….he could do a t-shirt with a happy face by Vermont…….exclaiming the only free speech site in Vermont, playing off VTDigger campaign………not free but then VPR and VT Digger are not free either, and they don’t allow comments!
Keep up the good work Guy!
An old Vermonter once told me ,over 1/2 a century back ,”Believe nothing that you hear, and read, and half of what you see, and you’ll do all right in this world.”
Regardless, I still wrote my check, and will post it to you tomorrow.
Keep up the good works.
Headline fixed:
Two big HOORAH’S for VDC!
Somebody on the “free”sites is paying for the operation to run. There is no such thing as a free ride. It can be the people who pay for it or NGO”S, Government, non-profits and people who are data mining and tampering with free speech on the site or not allowing others to see what was printed.
Is there a freer site in Vermont or the United states? x is exposing so many nefarious posters…….
This is by far the best deal going. Show me something better……
Guy well done, well done.
Yes, I have decided to subscribe to VCD again, because where else can I torment so many people with so much truth. Comment from Richard Day. What I have to say I will pay to play.
OK Guy, I paid for the year, I do appreciate the VDC, free speech platform, any interest in starting a BPF, Back Porch Forum, something to counter the commie FPF, I’ve been banned for a few years now, so we can list anything including the FPF unmentionables, ie Guns, GOD, Guitars!
Definitely news on THAT front…. see today’s VDC
Happy to support a Vermont news outlet who champions free speech, while other Vermont news outlets suppress free speech.
Thanks guy! My check will be in the mail shortly.
My fear is this promotes bubble think and division. People with alternative opinions likely won’t subscribe and the publication will be deemed less reputable. In all fairness i tend to go against the grain with a great deal of skepticism. I do appreciate VDC but i can’t afford it. Bye folks thanks for everything Guy.
You don’t have to leave… you can still read, you just can’t comment. I too, unfortunately, can’t afford to subscribe either even though it’s “only” 9 dollars a month.
My reply on this article was the first to not be taken down since I contacted Mr. Paige some time ago. However, there are two others commenting on this thread that are supposedly in violation of the new policy that have not been trashed or removed. As for D Davis, I have not seen you disparage any other commenters only mine. That leads me to believe that you just don’t like what I say. I have also seen others commenting not under their names who were allowed to continue.
I contacted Mr. Paige and relayed my thoughts on his decision early on. The internet is full of trolls. If you are a state employee, a person who holds licenses from the state or someone who reports on a person of power, they may come after you. Also, if the comments are to bring important information to readers, are not violating other rules and are just good discussion, why does a name matter. For instance, there are (7) D. Davis people living in Vermont. Which one is commenting here? I also believe that the majority of current commenters are older and retired and the comments are from a few people, not like in the beginning when the comments were from many. Furthermore, most news sites are funded by advertising revenue.
It is the comment section that keeps these sites alive and interesting. Having a members only comment section destroys the heartbeat of free speech. Anyone commenting who is out of line or nasty can easily be removed. I predict a boring comment section in the future with just a few taking the time to comment. I don’t comment to feel important, I comment to contribute and you are free to not like what I say or like what I say. Being trashed does not provide that avenue. I will be fine either way!
Note to VIP 1, Guy’s last name is spelled PAGE…
Disappointed to hear about this Mr.Page. 2% here,4% there,3% here,5% there, and it’s constant/everywhere! It begs the question,how much is enough? And on top of this, No pay,no say?? VDC is now a “Club”? “Members” only? Is the next step no comment section, just like all the other “Media”sites? I can afford the “Fee” Mr.Page but, I don’t like the direction this is going…
Mr. Page has forgotten about all the people who commented in the beginning. Those who helped it grow. There’s already less people commenting and because I pointed it out, I’ve been banned.
@VIP1, if you’re banned how is it that you just posted this comment… I’m confused
VIP1,
If you feel like you’ve been banned, try playing by the rules like the rest of us.
Per the editor: “Real, full names are now required. All comments without real full names will be unapproved or trashed.”
https://vermontdailychronicle.com/letters-chinese-consulate-responds-to-vdc-readers-comments/
Maybe allowing anonymous comments due to the social credit score threat, and Chinese consulate threats + anonymous payment would be an idea.
@H. Jay Eshelman – Stop using AI slop
VermontVermonter: I’m sorry I missed this earlier. But I didn’t comment on your above-mentioned article. So, what are you talking about?
And, regarding ‘AI Slop’… what’s your problem with AI? If someone posts what you consider to be ‘slop’, be it an extemporaneous stream of consciousness or researched data, explain first what you mean by the term ‘slop’. After all, when you cast undefined denunciations on those with whom you disagree, isn’t that, in itself, a reasonable definition of the term ‘slop’?
Please. Explain yourself.
Hi Guy, Why do I have to lock in? Can’t you just keep charging my CC like you’ve been doing?
Greg
Subscribers who are already giving $9/month are ‘locked in,’ thank you Greg.
I find it difficult to afford these increases. But I also feel that VDC is worth every penny and even more than it is now asking. Where else can we get such a conservative voice here in Vermont…it is needed now more than ever. I just sent my check in for 2026…thank you Guy for your continued leadership and contribution to the traditional Vermont cause…we are the remnant who can initiate change.
Re: “Publisher responds to ‘pay to play’ pushback – By Guy Page
A missive that has, as of this writing, 11:40am 11-29-25, not been published on the VDC open format.
Guy, please publish the above referenced email message on the ‘unparalleled free speech megaphone’ that is VDC so I can comment on it publicly.