3 ms·

They are asking, please stop using our content without giving something back. We need something from you to continue. Here are two options. Payment, or ads that

They are asking, please stop using our content without giving something back. We need something from you to continue. Here are two options. Payment, or ads that we'll try and keep ok. The response is, we'll weaponize and win. Or excuses about how I don't contribute anything but might bring in someone who does, so how dare you. You are going to fail. These are not evidence based arguments. It's not to hard to block Ad Block users. Other media companies have survived with paywalls AND ads. And even if it doesn't work out, Wired can pull back and at least say they tried. It's the self righteous behaviour about it that's immoral. The glee at that they might fail. This can be read both above and below the lines.

striking 11y ago
We don't want to bet on their content being good enough that it's worth so much money. And honestly, if there really is a wall that isn't casually circumventable, then I just won't read it. I don't care enough to pay. If they curated some constantly brilliant content, I'd jump on paying them. But as it is, I rarely end up there anyway.
marklgr 11y ago
> Payment, or ads that we'll try and keep ok. The response is, we'll weaponize and win. You really got to realize this is not about showing ads, ie. some plain jpg/gifs--which a lot of people would accept--but loading tons of tracking scripts that slow you down and violate your privacy. So yeah, I'm gonna protect against that, I don't deem it as an acceptable choice.
- majewsky 11y ago
  I'm not sure about that. I'm right there with you, but I'm skeptical whether it's a majority opinion. Does anybody have numbers on that?
beedogs 11y ago
How's the weather up there on that tall horse, mister?
mirimir 11y ago
They could come up with a better payment option. They could accept micropayments of some sort. Even an anonymous deposit-based system. Then they could quote me an ad-auction based price, and give me the option of entering an account number and password.
hueving 11y ago
>They are asking, please stop using our content without giving something back. They are asking to violate your privacy by feeding your personal information to an ad network. If they were clear about the exchange they expected (personal info for articles), then people wouldn't be so harsh on them. It's pretending that their proposition is just seeing a little ad that's misleading to the point of being immoral. >It's the self righteous behaviour about it that's immoral I wouldn't call people being upset that wired has made this anti-privacy decision to force people into an all or nothing subscription self-righteous because it's not unfounded. This is a big middle finger to anyone who cares about privacy.

striking 11y ago

We don't want to bet on their content being good enough that it's worth so much money. And honestly, if there really is a wall that isn't casually circumventable, then I just won't read it. I don't care enough to pay. If they curated some constantly brilliant content, I'd jump on paying them. But as it is, I rarely end up there anyway.

marklgr 11y ago

> Payment, or ads that we'll try and keep ok. The response is, we'll weaponize and win. You really got to realize this is not about showing ads, ie. some plain jpg/gifs--which a lot of people would accept--but loading tons of tracking scripts that slow you down and violate your privacy. So yeah, I'm gonna protect against that, I don't deem it as an acceptable choice.

majewsky 11y ago
I'm not sure about that. I'm right there with you, but I'm skeptical whether it's a majority opinion. Does anybody have numbers on that?

beedogs 11y ago

How's the weather up there on that tall horse, mister?

mirimir 11y ago

They could come up with a better payment option. They could accept micropayments of some sort. Even an anonymous deposit-based system. Then they could quote me an ad-auction based price, and give me the option of entering an account number and password.

hueving 11y ago

>They are asking, please stop using our content without giving something back. They are asking to violate your privacy by feeding your personal information to an ad network. If they were clear about the exchange they expected (personal info for articles), then people wouldn't be so harsh on them. It's pretending that their proposition is just seeing a little ad that's misleading to the point of being immoral. >It's the self righteous behaviour about it that's immoral I wouldn't call people being upset that wired has made this anti-privacy decision to force people into an all or nothing subscription self-righteous because it's not unfounded. This is a big middle finger to anyone who cares about privacy.