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

231–240 of 331 posts

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#231

Post by johnvanommen »

Centigonal wrote: post #68
dieselgate wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respect your opinion but am grateful for and find tremendous value in my NYT subscription. I share it with my SO and read their articles constantly. Prior to getting a subscription I was a "turn js off" kind of person - which is fine I suppose and still do it for other sites. I do not maintain any streaming or other subscriptions outside of Deezer (and a Garmin GPS FWIW). I would like a Bloomberg subscription but t…

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.

> 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?

Leave a bad review where their social marketing team will see it.

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#232

Post by ericpauley »

johnvanommen wrote: post #228
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 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…

A certified letter never fails in my experience.

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#233

Post by fletchowns »

johnvanommen wrote: post #228
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 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…

Copy/paste this to your local news organization and your representative in congress.

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#235

Post by parineum »

Centigonal wrote: post #68
dieselgate wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respect your opinion but am grateful for and find tremendous value in my NYT subscription. I share it with my SO and read their articles constantly. Prior to getting a subscription I was a "turn js off" kind of person - which is fine I suppose and still do it for other sites. I do not maintain any streaming or other subscriptions outside of Deezer (and a Garmin GPS FWIW). I would like a Bloomberg subscription but t…

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.

Cancelling yhe subscription does both. You can't cancel if you're not subscribed.

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#236

Post by the_origami_fox »

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 because I was worried it would affect the Free Press. That's how much I like it. Thankfully it hasn't much, just mostly her personal reporting - which was great - isn't there anymore.

The Free Press has its own biases. But it's much more varied and inquisitive than other news sites. Sometimes I get to the end of an article and I'm annoyed that the author didn't make more of a stand and then I realise, that's the point.

Some articles are just super interesting. Their indepth investigation into the Free Birth Society wasn't a big story, but it made a profound and personal impact on me.

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#237

Post by dysfunction »

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…

Especially because in most ways it actually isn't better in the app. Even on an iPhone 17 it is usually quite slow and hangs frequently. Offline reading SHOULD be a clear advantage to the app, but it is completely inconsistent about what will be available offline, when I'm sure a significant fraction of their readership are New Yorkers trying to read while commuting on the subway.

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#238

Post by beAbU »

johnvanommen wrote: post #228
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 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 argument holds. If you had to sacrifice a couple of your sleeping hours but you know you can sort your problem, then you migt be inclined to do so?

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#239

Post by kps »

senderista wrote: post #171
bandofthehawk wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their Ukraine coverage is basically Russia-lite, and extremely anti-Ukrainian This is very surprising to me, I thought they were kind of pro Ukraine biased. I asked an AI and it came back with this: > The New York Times' coverage of the war is overwhelmingly pro-Ukraine in its framing, tone, and attribution of responsibility, though critics argue this manifests as omission of context regarding NATO expansion and US…

Of course it is and always has been. However, since 2023 with the failure of the overhyped summer counteroffensive, the mainstream narrative has shifted in a slightly more realist direction, which infuriates a lot of people.

> Of course it is and always has been.

Somewhere Walter Duranty is looking up and smiling.

Re: The desperation of NYTimes

#240

Post by t-3 »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #176
queenkjuul wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't even read the NYT lol let alone pay for it. Iraq war: not even once.

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.

Supporting the war is a hell of a lot different from laundering lies and justifications to build public support for the war. They lied, they knew they lied, and they knew a lot of innocent people would die because of it but did so anyway.
Post reply on HN