> Would poorer people have access to non-fake news? Or would they be force to read/consume fake-but-free news? A critical problem. The focus needs to be on pro

> Would poorer people have access to non-fake news? Or would they be force to read/consume fake-but-free news? A critical problem. The focus needs to be on providing 'real' news more than dealing with the fake stuff. Also consider: 1) Probably the vast majority of people online and who will be online, including in many poor countries, cannot afford a NY Times subscription. People who through the miracle of the Internet would now have access to objective, top-notch news coverage will now be shut out. 2) Parties who want to spread propaganda are the ones who would be willing to finance free publications. 3) Will the NY Times be part of the online conversation if only a small subset of the online population can read it? I don't know a better way for them to fund themselves, but it's a serious blow to the public and their knowledge of the world.