I'm mainly talking about news outlets, and mainly the premiers like NYT and major regionals. Those outlets claim, probably rightly so, that they can't survive

I'm mainly talking about news outlets, and mainly the premiers like NYT and major regionals. Those outlets claim, probably rightly so, that they can't survive on subscriptions alone, they need ads. But on the web, what that means is "we can't survive unless we degrade your web experience and violate your privacy by selling you to ad networks." We're all focused on the ad side, and "how can we make money selling exactly what we've always sold without ads." Maybe selling news is not a viable business on the web. Ad blockers are not just evidence that we don't like ads as they are now, but also evidence that "we don't want to pay for what you're selling us. What you're selling us isn't worth it." Maybe a premier outlet like the NYT should be more than a news outlet. Maybe also an education outlet. NYT especially (and other premiers) already have people who do excellent research, writing, presentation, web development and data analysis. They have all the tools for education, they just aren't deploying them that way. In classrooms, teachers sometimes try to incorporate current events into lessons. Turn that on its head. But don't fall into the trap of replicating "the classroom," or courses, online. This would need some pretty serious innovation. Would I subscribe to something like that? Hell yeah. I'd even accept ads, but not active privacy gouging ads, just static text and images served from the first party domain. Don't do something new, only to fuck it up with old. Premier news outlets could be so much more that just another trap for ad viewing. They have really smart people, trapped in their employers' outdated business models.