Jeff Jarvis argues that paid content isn't necessarily the future of Internet journalism:

Why do people write on Huffington Post? Because they can. Because they give a shit. Because they like the attention and conversation. Because they couldn’t before. Why do they sing their songs on YouTube? Same reasons.

Scott Esposito takes the opposite approach:

I don’t doubt that there are genuinely worthwhile content strainers out there (yours truly attempts to do his humble part, along with some worthwhile original content), but what The Huffington Post does is more akin to a fire hose than a strainer. As users and search engines get more savvy, I don’t see this kind of business model sticking around.

Nor do I see it being a source of great revenue. The Times could make a legitimate case to charge for what it does–you can’t get what the Times does anywhere else. That’s not true for HuffPo. And I think the audience that the Times has built can be monetized in ways that HuffPo’s never will. There’s a certain point when you go from taming the chaos to just being another part of the chaos, and HuffPo has passed that point.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.