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

Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

whatsnewinpublishing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 229 posts

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#111

Post by larntz »

shusson wrote: post #21
vorpalhex wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still offer people content for free and also not be defeated by incognito. Offer regular news articles for free, and make premium editorials and analysis require a (reasonably priced) subscription. But anecdotally, news orgs will never get my money while their subscription terms continue to be asinine. I will gladly give a newspaper $25 - $50 a year for access. I will not play these $X/week for odd week incre…

> while their subscription terms continue to be asinine Agreed. The only official way to cancel a NYT subscription is to call them. Infuriating.

That is ridiculous. I refuse to subscribe to anything that makes it difficult to unsubscribe.

I learned my lesson from LA Fitness. Check the cancellation process before signing up for anything that requires a contract.

I suppose that should be common sense, but I never thought about it until I had to mail a freaking letter to their HQ requesting cancellation.

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#112

Post by 52-6F-62 »

kyledrake wrote: post #110
52-6F-62 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It appears your statement is a touch inaccurate: https://www.statista.com/chart/3755/digital-subscribers-of-t... I also have a hard time understanding why it should be free. If you don't want to pay for it, you don't have to pay for it. You also aren't entitled to their for free no more than the writers at the New York Times are entitled to your work for free.

As that article points out, that is far more related to Trump being elected (something they played a major role in by helping squash a progressive reform candidate in favor of an institutionalist neoliberal) than to their browser paywall strategy. It says far more about how online media is rewarded for making things worse, a scary lesson I hope not too many people learn. I don't get news from the NYT and am quite hap…

The starting date is in 2011 when they introduced a metered paywall and has seen an increase yearly. The "Trump effect" was a substantial boost in 2016, but only a part of the overall trend.

Google isn't free.

https://hackernoon.com/how-does-google-earn-money-as-simple-...

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#113

Post by turc1656 »

This might be a dumb question as someone who isn't a pro on this topic but isn't it really simple to just log the IP of the request for the article and meter it based on IP instead of cookies, browser fingerprinting, or however they are doing it now? Won't that solve like 99.9% of the problem? I would imagine the amount of people that will rotate IPs just to read free articles is exceptionally small.

I suppose that might pose an issue with shared IPs at offices, for example. Also might cause a minor issue with people in the same household trying to read articles on the same site. But seems like a vast improvement over nothing at all, no?

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#114

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

turc1656 wrote: post #113

This might be a dumb question as someone who isn't a pro on this topic but isn't it really simple to just log the IP of the request for the article and meter it based on IP instead of cookies, browser fingerprinting, or however they are doing it now? Won't that solve like 99.9% of the problem? I would imagine the amount of people that will rotate IPs just to read free articles is exceptionally small. I suppose that m…

No, mobile providers change your IP all the time, and these days most (or nearly most) news content is read on a mobile device.

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#115

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #96
kyledrake wrote: post #34

But how will we pay the NYT to try to drag the US into wars while David Brooks lectures debt-loaded millennials about work ethic and family values unless we let them continue to exploit a bug in web browsers? Monopolist news orgs are losing readership/revenue because they're terrible and refuse to change, not because of Chrome. Meanwhile other, better forms of journalism are thriving.

It appears your statement is a touch inaccurate: https://www.statista.com/chart/3755/digital-subscribers-of-t... I also have a hard time understanding why it should be free. If you don't want to pay for it, you don't have to pay for it. You also aren't entitled to their for free no more than the writers at the New York Times are entitled to your work for free.

I don't have a problem with the content not being available for free. But the publishers want the best of both worlds. They could easily, for example, make all content require a login, but they know that would kill their readership. This idea that they are somehow entitled to know how many times a non-logged in user has visited their site is absurd.

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#116

Post by turc1656 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #114
turc1656 wrote: post #113

This might be a dumb question as someone who isn't a pro on this topic but isn't it really simple to just log the IP of the request for the article and meter it based on IP instead of cookies, browser fingerprinting, or however they are doing it now? Won't that solve like 99.9% of the problem? I would imagine the amount of people that will rotate IPs just to read free articles is exceptionally small. I suppose that m…

No, mobile providers change your IP all the time, and these days most (or nearly most) news content is read on a mobile device.

Ah, good point. Wasn't thinking of mobile because I'm in the minority on news consumption. I do pretty much all of it from a desktop/PC.

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#117

Post by jhall1468 »

testvox wrote: post #86
jhall1468 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue they are intruding in that they are accessing information from my browser that they shouldn't have access to. If their website allows me to read an article they don't want me to by going to "www.nytimes.com" that's not an intrusion, that's poor gating on their part.

Couldn't you say the same thing about any security hole? If Equifax didn't want people reading their databases then they shouldn't have allowed anyone with an internet connection to remotely execute code on their systems via https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/issues/8064

There's an enormous difference between accessing a public endpoint, and accessing one that isn't intended to be public. To use addresses as an analogy:

Going to www.nytimes.com is roughly the equivalent to driving in front of someones house. It's certainly not my fault if they leave their blinds open while they are naked. Now maybe they thought I was someone else due to the car I drove, but that sure as shit isn't my problem.

Equifax is an entirely different issue. If you leave the door open to your house, that sure as hell doesn't give me the right to go into it. I can look at it, I can even tell everyone "Hey, that door is wide open." But I can't go in do shit without permission to be there.

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#118

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

reaperducer wrote: post #59
vorpalhex wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still offer people content for free and also not be defeated by incognito. Offer regular news articles for free, and make premium editorials and analysis require a (reasonably priced) subscription. But anecdotally, news orgs will never get my money while their subscription terms continue to be asinine. I will gladly give a newspaper $25 - $50 a year for access. I will not play these $X/week for odd week incre…

I will gladly give a newspaper $25 - $50 a year for access The regional newspaper in my state is $25/6 months, which includes the physical Sunday paper and DRM-free downloadable PDFs of the newspaper every day that you can view on any device. About a year ago I looked around at papers in other states, and the pricing and benefits were similar. It's only the super-premium papers that charge much more, but even the New…

The problem is there is so much content available on the web, but there isn't yet a federated subscription service to support it all. I would pay ~ $5 a month for news access, but I'm certainly not going to pay 2 or 5 or 10 dollars a month for each random site I visit to read their couple articles that may interest me. I just will skip their content.

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#119

Post by vorpalhex »

greenburger wrote: post #94
vorpalhex wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did my last check-through of all the newspaper plans about 3 months ago, and out of the 6 on my list, not one offered a clear cut subscription. I actually, really don't want a physical newspaper. I do want clear subscription terms. Your regional newspaper does sound super reasonable though, and I hope more newspapers follow that general model.

Not clear what newspapers you’re looking at but NYTimes has these options that seem to meet your criteria. https://www.nytimes.com/subscription/gift

That's $200 a year for a newspaper I read about once a week and that doesn't even get me their cooking section.

Re: Google unlocks 33% of publisher paywalls on July 30

#120

Post by 52-6F-62 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #118
reaperducer wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will gladly give a newspaper $25 - $50 a year for access The regional newspaper in my state is $25/6 months, which includes the physical Sunday paper and DRM-free downloadable PDFs of the newspaper every day that you can view on any device. About a year ago I looked around at papers in other states, and the pricing and benefits were similar. It's only the super-premium papers that charge much more, but even the New…

The problem is there is so much content available on the web, but there isn't yet a federated subscription service to support it all. I would pay ~ $5 a month for news access, but I'm certainly not going to pay 2 or 5 or 10 dollars a month for each random site I visit to read their couple articles that may interest me. I just will skip their content.

Sounds like Apple News?
Post reply on HN