Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The desperation of NYTimes

rozumem.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 331 posts

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#241

Post by daveshistory »

beAbU wrote: post #238
johnvanommen wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any place that allows easy instantaneous subscription by a simple web form, but makes you call and talk to a person during limited business hours for cancellation I moved into a new home. I kept the old one for a few weeks extra. Needed time to move out. I signed up for CenturyLink at my new home. After six weeks, I tried to turn off internet at my old house. * I can’t. * CenturyLink wouldn’t let me cancel, without…

This is a good argument for local brick and mortar representation for the critical services we consume. My bank, mobile and fibre providers all have branches/offices/shops in the town closest to where I live (15km drive). At each of these locations there is one or more necks that can be wrung if something goes wrong with my services I know it's not really a solution for your nocturnal proclivities, but I think the ar…

If all else fails resort to old-fashioned letter. As long as it's certified you will have proof of delivery. And then, if they continue to make unauthorized charges, it is your credit card company's problem. They are awake during business hours, and they WILL sort it out.

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#242

Post by nritchie »

jdale27 wrote: post #216
Centigonal wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting topic. If a company does something you approve of (e.g. do journalism) and something else you disapprove of (e.g. make canceling hard), is there a good way to signal both as a consumer? This is also relevant in the context of companies like Target, which has been boycotted by both sides of the US political spectrum for various reasons.

There’s a form of Gell-Mann amnesia at work here. Why would you expect a company that is unethical in its business practices to be ethical where it counts, in its reporting? The answer is that it isn’t.

The product they sell is trustworthy news but they still have accountants. The high-quality news business is a rough business and few are profitable. I can understand why they might feel defensive and a more than a little spooked. How many profitable quality newspapers can you identify? NYT and WSJ - any others?

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#243

Post by sambaumann »

sneva wrote: post #57

Slightly off-topic, but if anyone needs to read a NYT article from time to time, check if your public library offers digital access. A lot of them do. For example, the San Francisco Public Library gives you 72 hours of access at a time: https://sfpl.libanswers.com/faq/166904 .

This is what I do every time I want to read an article.

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#244

Post by beAbU »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #90
filoleg wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, I made the same mistake once by subbing on their website. Dealing with the eventual cancelation was an absolute pain. Years later, I wanted to sub again, and this time I did it through the iOS app. Best decision ever, as now it just sits alongside my other App Store subscriptions and is easily cancelable in a single click.

Assuming they are both the same price this also speaks directly to NTY: people will give Apple a 30% cut just to not deal with their shitty practices.

No it doesn't, because the price is the same. If the Apple Pay route was 30% expensiver, then I reckon most would not opt for that option.

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#245

Post by xnyan »

mikestew wrote: post #111
iscrewyou wrote: post #50

I was a subscriber and stopped simply because they have ads in the app. I could look past the slowness of the app than what a webpage could deliver but ads in articles for paid subscribers? Cancelled it.

The NYT, as well as just about every other newspaper, has always had ads in the print edition whether you subscribed or not. Subscriptions have rarely paid the full cost of producing a newspaper. In the case of magazines, I would argue that the whole point of the magazine is to carry ads that target a specific demographic. The articles are just there to make you buy it.

I'm really glad you brought this point up. I used to read physical newspapers, and I never had any problem with their advertisements. If you ask me to think of invasive internet ads, I can give you a dozen specific, frustrating examples (smack the money anyone?) without effort, but I struggle to remember a single time that I felt like a physical newspaper ad ever interfered with my reading experience.

Something like 40% of users employ an ad blocker, and the other 60% likely don't know ad blockers exist. I think that's a pretty strong signal that something is wrong with internet ads specifically - people are willing to accept ads in other aspects of their life when it's not so invasive.

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#246

Post by ddosmax556 »

What's with these journals all being so hostile? I remember years ago i tried to delete my Washington Post account - there was no button anywhere in the settings menu though, only: text if you want your data deleted. I texted them, they asked back, do you live in a GDPR region? I said no, they replied well tough luck. Insane

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#248

Post by HDThoreaun »

queenkjuul wrote: post #227
HDThoreaun wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you only read news from companies against the iraq war your options consist pretty much solely of companies that didnt exist on 9/11.

If that's what it takes

Except this strategy doesnt actually accomplish anything. It doesnt tell you anything about what they wouldve published had they been publishing back then

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#249

Post by xnyan »

sandcat_ wrote: post #156
mikestew wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYT, as well as just about every other newspaper, has always had ads in the print edition whether you subscribed or not. Subscriptions have rarely paid the full cost of producing a newspaper. In the case of magazines, I would argue that the whole point of the magazine is to carry ads that target a specific demographic. The articles are just there to make you buy it.

Yeah but they’re different. Print ads don’t grab your attention in the way animated ads mid article do. You can even fold the paper to ignore them if they are. I can read a newspaper with ads no problem, but NYT without an adblocker (or in app) is endlessly distracting to me.

For anyone that read/reads physical newspapers, do this little exercise: try to remember a time that a printed newspaper ad prevented you reading an article or made it significantly more difficult. I can't personally think of a single example.

Before even finishing this sentence, I can think of five or six examples of awful internet ads that completely ruined the experience I was having (spank this monkey NOW!).

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#250

Post by xnyan »

the_origami_fox wrote: post #236

As an alternative, the Free Press is honestly much better. I joined it because of the NY Times' bitter hit piece on Bari Weiss, who left them to found the Free Press. I wanted something that wasn't woke. I've stayed because of the excellent quality of reporting, varied points of view, and well researched investigations. I was upset when Weiss announced she was leaving the Free Press to head a big American news agency…

It was absolutely a hit piece, but what specifically was inaccurate?
Post reply on HN