131–140 of 345 posts
With every single news outlet taking polical position lately - it became intolerable to read or find somewhat objective news source. I don't mind paying <$10 / mo for clean no BS objective and detailed coverage.
Here's hoping Google actually enforces their policy.
It was also very informative.
If you can't derive value from it, I understand all the trouble people go through to bypass it. It's just that I see that people's stated aims and revealed preferences are in contradiction. Everyone wants high quality news. No one seems to want to pay what it costs.
With every single news outlet taking polical position lately - it became intolerable to read or find somewhat objective news source. I don't mind paying <$10 / mo for clean no BS objective and detailed coverage.
First of all, I think it's great that journalists can get compensated for their work. but, strictly speaking as a consumer, I must say their paywall is completely out of touch with the way I want to pay for news consumption. I don't mind paying 5c or even 10c per article, but I'm certainly not going to sign up to pay 120$ for 6 months, if I'm only going to read 1 or 2 articles here and there. but since they've done i…
I suggest you try to find a substitute for those entertainment pennies. If you can, and that item is "free", good for you. But I doubt 5 or 10 cents gets you much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Economist is the only news organ I have consistently found to be worth subscribing to, despite its faults. The stuff in it that you think you're not interested in is almost invariably worth knowing about.
I had a subscription to the Economist for years and was reader for much longer, but the content has gotten much worse and they insist on displaying video ads right in the middle of articles even if you pay for a subscription.
Why do you think the content has gotten worse?
If anyone's looking for another workaround, the article actually hints at the solution: Facebook's l.php redirect that it uses when you click on a link shared through the platform. It functions similarly to the Google redirect, and you don't even need a Facebook account for it to work. E.g. https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/article...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The amount you want to pay for news is not anywhere close to the value it is providing you or that they make from ad revenue. What amount would be close to the value they make from ad revenue?
I would speculate they make between $5 - $20 CPM and they show 3-5 ads per article view. That puts the revenue between 1.5¢ and 10¢ per article pageview. Micropayment approaches and payment processor rates vary, but I'd generalize to probably 30% take rate. So assume 3.5¢ to 7¢ payment per article. Do you pay for every article you load? Do you pay again if you load the article twice? What if you don't like the articl…
YOu read the first free paragraph, if you like that you pay, if you dont like the rest of the article you dont get a refund since you have already consumed the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead of buying internet points for someone who figured out a little hack to access journalism, maybe you could instead pay for journalism?
A noble thought. My problem comes not from the fact that I don't want to pay but rather from the fact that it's super annoying. What if my browser could just say "article will be 25 cents?" and I could say y/n? But instead, I have to sign up for a service, hand over my credit card, blah blah, and now you've wasted enough of my time that it was worth just me stealing it. I'm pretty convinced it's just aUX thing.
As a good faith guarantee; if they failed to cancel your CC, they would reward you with say a $100.00?
I don't mind paying, but not reoccurring.
Out of curiosity I searched for the Wall Street Journal subscription page. I selected my country (UK) and then clicked on the subscription offer. I was then taken to a Hong Kong page with no obvious way of changing it back to the UK. If they want subscribers, they're going to have to do a better job than that.