Did you read the same article as me? They are only charging if you block ads. If you whitelist them on your ad blocker, you'll see the content. Its clear they

Did you read the same article as me? They are only charging if you block ads. If you whitelist them on your ad blocker, you'll see the content. Its clear they know no one will pay, but need to address the neckbeardy complaints that will come their way about 'being forced to see ads,' 'being forced to be tracked,' etc. >Suggested Solution: I see nothing wrong with the solution as is: view ads or pay to block. It seems like the rational middle ground here. Oh and they're committed to 'polite' ads. I don't think I've ever seen a loud ad on their site, ever. So this is a pretty easy commitment for them. I do hope that all this drama is making web publishers reconsider how loud and obnoxious most advertising is on the web, especially the mobile web. My big fear is that publishing will move into free hosting, namely on Facebook and other walled gardens. I think there are some pretty evil unintended consequences of ubiquitous ad blocking that no one is really considering yet.