81–90 of 229 posts
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.
> Meanwhile other, better forms of journalism are thriving. Such as?
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…
Your regional newspaper does sound super reasonable though, and I hope more newspapers follow that general model.
Newbie question: Would it work for publishers to key off of IP address instead of using cookies?
Kind of disingenuous to talk of the open web in this context as what the publishers are trying to do it rather the opposite to putting the content on the open web (to the extent the term isn't already taken for meaning building on public technologies).
The journalists and publishers need to get paid for their work of course, and running a proprietary, closed, pay-for-access service at the periphery of the open web can be justifiable. But I find the rhetoric here has a tinge of hypocrisy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Meanwhile other, better forms of journalism are thriving. Such as?
youtube/patreon
"Work for free for two years and maybe you will have a semi sustainable income" sucks.
Crowdfunding also encourages extreme opinions and bubbles over neutral reporting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, because you're "intruding" where you're not supposed to. It's hyperbolic but not wholly inaccurate. Gotta get clicks!
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.
If your entire industry is only barely viable through the use of user-hostile tracking, I find it hard to feel bad when the ad tech loopholes are closed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most investigative journalism, at least in France, only live from subscribtion. And it is starting to works pretty well.
examples?
See https://blogs.mediapart.fr/edwy-plenel/blog/140319/eleven-ye...
Opening with a Niall Ferguson quote doesn’t help the author’s credibility for people familiar with the history of that particular “historian.”
They should think hard about their next move because all that these paywalls have done is make it so I don't read their articles, and I don't feel like I'm missing anything. Maybe I'm the only one? I'm definitely not signing up to read them either.