3 ms·

Oh well, there goes another outlet. They can all do this, I don't care. Just won't read their content. Eventually there won't be any good non-paywalled content

Oh well, there goes another outlet. They can all do this, I don't care. Just won't read their content. Eventually there won't be any good non-paywalled content left, and I'll just figure something else out. They want my money, they're going to have to either pay off the mob (Adblock Plus) or get together with all the other news outlets and give me a one stop shop option. No way am I going to manage dozens of $1 a week subscriptions, logins, and such just to read articles linked to by Hacker News. Your content just isn't that important to me, sorry.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
orionblastar 11y ago
Not only that but every site that has your payment information could be hacked and someone steals it along with your password, email, and other information. I like reading sites that don't require a login unless you want to leave a comment. My account was hacked at the Harvard Business Review and I used to leave comments there. They redid their website and limit what you can read now. Sorry to say websites are moving towards a subscription model and I don't read every article on a website to make it worth the money. Just articles I have an interest in reading. I don't mind ads as long as they aren't annoying. As long as they don't take up a lot of the screen or pop up windows or a new browsing window or pop up a notice to enter my email to subscribe to their newsletter. I want to just read an article with no annoying stuff. Clickbait articles that take up several pages turn me off. Video ads that autoplay turn me off. That is why I installed an ad blocker to get rid of annoying things. I don't mind non annoying ads like Adwords or the typical banner ad.
- ccozan 11y ago
  I wonder if this would be the case for Paypal Subscriptions. I am already using that for a couple of sites, albeit they are with video content. Each is a couple of Euros a month. So, you wouldn't need to share your payment details with any publisher, but with just one , that distributes it further. This is really similar with the system in place in some countries, when you wanted to get a subscription to a newspaper, a central collecting money company would take your request, invoice you, etc, and distributed the newspaper to your door. Again, old business, "but on the internet". And if we don't like paypal, we can always build something better, right?
laurent123456 11y ago
There are more and more websites that try to force users to disable Adblock, but it only means that the anti-ad efforts are moving to anti-anti-adblockers. For now the easiest way is to use Anti-Adblock Killer[1], which so far works really well. Most likely they will add support for Wired once they enable their anti-adblock policy. [1] https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer
rsync 11y ago
"Oh well, there goes another outlet. They can all do this, I don't care. Just won't read their content. Eventually there won't be any good non-paywalled content left, and I'll just figure something else out." It reeks of desperation on their part - no good options left for their business or their business model. That being said, while I will not miss wired.com at all, I will miss a site like arstechnica and would hate to think they are in the same boat ... Presumably, given the even higher level of technical acumen among their readers, ars might be in an even worse situation.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

orionblastar 11y ago

Not only that but every site that has your payment information could be hacked and someone steals it along with your password, email, and other information. I like reading sites that don't require a login unless you want to leave a comment. My account was hacked at the Harvard Business Review and I used to leave comments there. They redid their website and limit what you can read now. Sorry to say websites are moving towards a subscription model and I don't read every article on a website to make it worth the money. Just articles I have an interest in reading. I don't mind ads as long as they aren't annoying. As long as they don't take up a lot of the screen or pop up windows or a new browsing window or pop up a notice to enter my email to subscribe to their newsletter. I want to just read an article with no annoying stuff. Clickbait articles that take up several pages turn me off. Video ads that autoplay turn me off. That is why I installed an ad blocker to get rid of annoying things. I don't mind non annoying ads like Adwords or the typical banner ad.

ccozan 11y ago
I wonder if this would be the case for Paypal Subscriptions. I am already using that for a couple of sites, albeit they are with video content. Each is a couple of Euros a month. So, you wouldn't need to share your payment details with any publisher, but with just one , that distributes it further. This is really similar with the system in place in some countries, when you wanted to get a subscription to a newspaper, a central collecting money company would take your request, invoice you, etc, and distributed the newspaper to your door. Again, old business, "but on the internet". And if we don't like paypal, we can always build something better, right?

laurent123456 11y ago

There are more and more websites that try to force users to disable Adblock, but it only means that the anti-ad efforts are moving to anti-anti-adblockers. For now the easiest way is to use Anti-Adblock Killer[1], which so far works really well. Most likely they will add support for Wired once they enable their anti-adblock policy. [1] https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer

rsync 11y ago

"Oh well, there goes another outlet. They can all do this, I don't care. Just won't read their content. Eventually there won't be any good non-paywalled content left, and I'll just figure something else out." It reeks of desperation on their part - no good options left for their business or their business model. That being said, while I will not miss wired.com at all, I will miss a site like arstechnica and would hate to think they are in the same boat ... Presumably, given the even higher level of technical acumen among their readers, ars might be in an even worse situation.