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

101–110 of 331 posts

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#101

Post by ngruhn »

ethagnawl wrote: post #54

The UX anti-pattern of theirs which really grinds my gears is the "Continue reading in the app -- it's better." modal which appears when reading articles on the web. There does not seem to be a way to permanently opt out of it. I'm sure I could use GreaseMonkey or whatever to dismiss it for me but I mostly read articles on my phone, which makes any of that harder. The larger point, though, is that I shouldn't have to…

Despite having a NYT audio subscription, I continue to listen to the ads in a third party podcast app just so I don't have to use their god damn app.

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#102

Post by mikestew »

alephnerd wrote: post #67
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> makes you call and talk to a person during limited business hours I unsubscribed a couple years ago. It was a click on the website. (Just checked. Cancelling online without talking to anyone is still an option.)

Depends on the jurisdiction you are in.

No, it doesn't. I live in WA, with no such consumer protections, and it was a few clicks.

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#103

Post by dataflow »

epistasis wrote: post #3

NYTimes is predatory on subscriptions. Over my long lifetime I've subscribed twice, and regretted it both times with intensity. 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 , is a toxic place. I've been told they have stopped this predatory practice due to some newly passed laws or something, but they…

What a fascinating hill to (with some assumptions about your political leanings) choose to die on. Does the logic go something like "the country may be dying while owing over $100,000 of debt on my behalf, but I'm not gonna let scummy newspapers get in the way with O($100) from my wallet?

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#104

Post by mikestew »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #45
epistasis wrote: post #3

NYTimes is predatory on subscriptions. Over my long lifetime I've subscribed twice, and regretted it both times with intensity. 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 , is a toxic place. I've been told they have stopped this predatory practice due to some newly passed laws or something, but they…

The fact that they have an online unsubscribe option that's only available for California users is seriously scummy.

That isn't a fact. Plenty of folks under the OG comment that don't live in CA have said they cancelled online, myself included.

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#105

Post by skybrian »

notsydonia wrote: post #76
skybrian wrote: post #12

Another example of being user-hostile is that they put videos on the front page that autoplay and can't be paused. I will not renew either.

Agree -they all do it. How do they justify the bounce rate? It's never once been shown to my knowledge that viewers love to have their browsing/reading/knowledge gathering interrupted by a volume-up video playing (usually) an ad. Is it just so they can tell advertisers X amount of people "viewed" your ad?

The videos I'm complaining about on the NYT aren't ads. They seem to think they're CNN or something. I don't want CNN. I want a newspaper.

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#106

Post by imoreno »

WarmWash wrote: post #82

They are desperate, all of media is desperate. People want news online, and they do not want to see ads, they do not want to pay a subscription. So if you are media company and want to stay afloat, you need to appeal to the people who are either willing (or don't know otherwise) to load ads or willing to pay a subscription. In both cases, it's in large part people on the fringe. Not your average person.

>they do not want to pay a subscription.

This is wrong in 2026. Lots of people want to pay. See: TFA

What they don't want is and _still_ see ads, get hassled by needy marketing emails. See: TFA

If you're saying "we're gonna show you ads and datamine you because you're getting it free", then when I do pay, you have to take that stuff out. Try to have your cake and eat it too = sub canceled, adblock on, ad nauseam enabled.

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#108

Post by epistasis »

mikestew wrote: post #95
epistasis wrote: post #3

NYTimes is predatory on subscriptions. Over my long lifetime I've subscribed twice, and regretted it both times with intensity. 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 , is a toxic place. I've been told they have stopped this predatory practice due to some newly passed laws or something, but they…

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 That hasn't been true for, what, almost ten years? When I cancelled three months ago, it was about three or four clicks through the beg screens, and done. No, I don't live in CA.

I live in California, cancelled about five years ago, and they forced me to talk to a person who demanded a reason for my cancellation, and then argued with me about wanting to cancel.

Do not subscribe to the NYTimes. Use your library card, if one must read it, and unfortunately as the undeserved "paper of record" one must often read it to be kept aware of what others are being fed. There's no baby here to throw out with the bath water, I find other places have far better coverage for all the topics I care intensely about. For example, their Ukraine coverage is basically Russia-lite, and extremely anti-Ukrainian, I haven't seen such biased coverage anywhere else except for far-right rags.

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#110

Post by bluebarbet »

tptacek wrote: post #42

The problem you're going to have in these kinds of analyses is that the New York Times is the most successful news organization basically in all of North America. They're doing these things because they work.

Causative link not established. The NYT is (probably) the world's most successful legacy-newspaper business for many other reasons too. For example, its historic reputation as the paper of record; network effects and digital first-mover advantage; and America's need for a locus of media opposition to a bossy government.
Post reply on HN