I am disappointed with Medium.
Not because a platform has rules. Every publishing platform has rules, and writers should read them. My disappointment is about the experience of discovering that a rule is being enforced against writers who believed they could continue using a feature, and about what that says about the relationship between a publishing platform and the people who create for it.
A writer shared a Medium notice on October 27 saying that a Medium membership was required to put new stories behind the paywall, with enforcement starting that day.[3] That is a report from an individual writer, not a platform-wide rollout schedule published by Medium. The distinction matters. I have not found an official Medium announcement confirming that every writer received the notice on the same date.
There is another important detail: the membership requirement itself does not appear to be new. Medium's Partner Program eligibility guidance requires an active Medium membership, and the current Partner Program terms say writers who were already participants on August 1, 2024 had until December 31, 2024 to meet the eligibility requirements.[1][2] So this looks less like a brand-new rule and more like enforcement reaching writers who had not previously encountered it in this way.
That does not make the frustration disappear. Medium's current terms reserve the right to modify or discontinue the Partner Program without advance notice. They also say Medium will use reasonable efforts to contact existing participants before removing them for failing to meet eligibility requirements.[2] We do not know the writer's account history, so we cannot tell whether this was a new application of the rule to that account or a delayed enforcement of an older requirement. The fair criticism is narrower: even if the terms allow the change without advance notice, a notice saying "starting today" gives a writer little time to understand the change and decide what to do next.
Membership is not the same as permission to publish
To be precise, Medium is not saying that writers must pay simply to post a public story. Its own help center says memberships are not required to read and write on Medium.[4] The Partner Program requirements concern eligibility to earn through the program and to use the paywall. The distinction is important, and it would be misleading to describe this as Medium charging every writer just to publish. The issue is narrower: a writer who wants to put a new story behind Medium's paywall needs to satisfy the membership requirement for the Partner Program.[1]
That narrower issue still has real consequences. A paywall is not just a decorative setting. It shapes how a writer chooses to distribute work, who can read it, and whether the writer can participate in the platform's monetization system. Medium's enrollment guidance says an active membership is one of the requirements, and that enrollment takes effect once the eligibility requirements are met.[1] This makes membership part of the product's earning workflow, not merely an optional way to support other writers.
If a writer's eligibility changes, the next questions are practical: can existing locked stories remain locked, what happens to future stories, and where can the writer find an explanation? Medium's Partner Program terms say that if a participant is removed, their locked stories will be removed from behind the paywall.[2] That is a material consequence. It deserves an explanation that is easy to find and hard to misunderstand.
A rule can be old and the rollout can still feel abrupt
I do not want to pretend that the requirement was invented yesterday. The official terms show that Medium had already set an eligibility deadline for existing Partner Program participants in 2024.[2] That is part of the story, and leaving it out would make the criticism weaker, not stronger.
Still, a rule's existence in a terms page is not the same as every affected writer understanding how it applies to them. Terms pages are important, but most writers do not revisit them every time they open the editor. If a creator can access a paywall control and later finds that new stories can no longer use it without a membership, the platform should communicate the transition directly, explain the reason, and state what the writer can still do.
The report shared on October 27 says the enforcement began that day for at least one writer.[3] That is enough to raise a reasonable question, but not enough to claim that Medium changed the rule for everyone overnight. I want to keep those facts separate. The requirement is documented. The timing and reach of the enforcement are less clear from the public information I could verify.
That uncertainty is itself part of the problem. Writers should not have to piece together a platform policy from individual screenshots, help pages, and community posts. If a rule is changing in practice, the platform should say who is affected, when it applies, whether there is a grace period, and where writers can find the official explanation.
A useful notice should let the recipient answer a few basic questions without searching through community threads. Does the requirement apply to every Partner Program writer, or only to accounts that were previously allowed to use the paywall without meeting the membership condition? Does it affect only new stories, or also stories that are already locked? What action can the writer take, and by what date? Medium's terms address some of these consequences, including removal of locked stories if a participant is removed from the program.[2] The reported email also says enforcement begins immediately, but the public post does not establish how broadly that message was sent or whether every account was treated alike.[3]
I would find this easier to accept if the communication made the situation unambiguous. A link to the relevant eligibility page, a plain explanation of the account's status, and reasonable time to decide would not remove the membership requirement. They would make the enforcement easier to understand and give writers a fair chance to choose whether the program still works for them. That is a modest expectation, not a demand that Medium change its business model.
Why this disappoints me as a writer
A publishing platform asks writers to invest more than words. We invest time in shaping stories, formatting them for the editor, learning the platform's distribution habits, and building a relationship with readers there. In return, we expect the platform to make its rules understandable and its product behavior predictable.
That expectation is not a demand for guaranteed reach or income. No platform can promise that every story will find an audience. It is a basic expectation that important eligibility changes will be communicated in a way that respects the people who rely on the service.
When writers discover a restriction only after they try to use a feature, trust takes a hit. Even if the restriction is technically documented, the experience can still feel like the ground moved beneath them. Clear communication cannot make every policy popular, but it can prevent avoidable surprise and let writers make an informed decision.
Medium may reasonably decide that its Partner Program requires membership. A company can set eligibility criteria for a monetization program. But writers can also reasonably decide that the combination of a membership requirement, unclear enforcement timing, and uncertainty about future access is not a publishing arrangement they want to continue with.
That is where I have landed. I am not claiming Medium has banned public writing, and I am not claiming that a membership requirement appeared for the first time this week. I am saying that this experience has changed how much confidence I have in the platform as a place to keep publishing.
This will be my last article on Medium
I have decided that this will be my last article on Medium. I am sharing it on DEV because I want the point to be readable outside the platform I am criticizing.
This is not a call for writers to leave Medium, and it is not a claim that every writer will have the same experience. Some writers may find the membership worthwhile. Others may be comfortable publishing public stories without using the Partner Program. Those are valid choices.
For me, the issue is trust. I want to publish somewhere I can understand the rules, make a plan around them, and feel that important changes will be communicated clearly. I do not want to keep investing in a platform when I am uncertain about how its monetization controls will work for me or when I will learn about a change in practice.
Medium still lets writers publish public stories without paying for membership.[4] That fact deserves to be stated plainly. So does the other fact: access to the Partner Program and its paywall is tied to membership eligibility.[1] Writers should be able to weigh both points without exaggeration or confusion.
My disappointment is not that Medium has a business model. It is that the experience has left me less confident in the platform and more convinced that I should put my future writing elsewhere. I would have preferred a clear explanation before a restriction appeared in the workflow. Instead, I am making my decision now.
This is my final article on Medium. I will keep writing, but I will do it elsewhere.
Sources
[1] Medium Partner Program eligibility
[2] Medium Partner Program Terms
[3] A writer's report of a Medium enforcement notice on October 27, 2026
[4] Using Medium
Top comments (2)
The rule being old while the enforcement felt sudden is the part that stings: nothing changed on paper, but your reach did. If you keep cross-posting anywhere, point the canonical at your own site and collect emails there. That way the next policy change costs you a channel, not your readers.
Thank you the suggestion. Appreciate it.