5 ms·

It's only a partial paywall. A redirect, referer change or resetting cookie file would be able to fix their broken website when the time comes.

by dmn001 16y ago

natrius 16y ago
If you read their articles enough to hit the paywall, why not just pay to support the product they're creating?
- dmn001 16y ago
  Information wants to be free.
  - natrius 16y ago
    Journalists are the ones who free that information in the first place. The less remunerative that career is, the less information there will be. I think it helps to consider your subscription to be more of a donation than payment for a product. Then again, I work for a non-profit news organization. (Feel free to donate.)
  - dandelany 16y ago
    Libre, not gratis.
- thunk 16y ago
  Partly because the news isn't the product, the audience is. And partly because it's too annoying. It'd be just another thing demanding attention. Unless their journalism magically becomes way more valuable to me, I'd just leave. There's already too much news to assimilate. The real irony is that the customers who're loyal enough to hit the paywall are the last ones the NYT should be charging. They're already paying attention in spades. Punish your real fans. That's the ticket.
  - natrius 16y ago
    "Partly because the news isn't the product, the audience is." This doesn't make sense in the context you're using it in. If a company makes all of its money from ads, then sure, the audience provided to advertisers is the product. In this case, the Times is asking for the readers to pay money to read news, which pretty clearly makes the news the product. Most of the investigative journalism that has a national impact seems to originate from the New York Times and the Washington Post. If that isn't valuable to you, you're not paying attention.
    - thunk 16y ago
      The NYT online does make all its money on advertising. The current reality is that we are the product. > Most of the investigative journalism that has a national impact seems to originate from the New York Times and the Washington Post. If that isn't valuable to you, you're not paying attention. This is an argument from authority, or something. "Big, respectable, nationally impactful investigative journalism." (like cheerleading the Iraq War?) Nowadays, we can get the facts from a hundred other sources, and the situation on the ground is more likely to show up on Twitter first, raw and undiluted.
      - natrius 16y ago
        You can argue about the definition of "the product" all you want, but you're not explaining what your point is. You're making it seem like they're charging people to see ads. I'm fairly certain they'll make more money from the paywall fee than the ads for a given user. You don't have to take my word for their impact. http://www.pulitzer.org/ http://www.pulitzer.org/ RE: Iraq War — I never said they were perfect.
        thunk 16y ago
        > I'm fairly certain they'll make more money from the paywall fee than the ads for a given user. And I'm betting the paywall will never go up. Eight months is a long time. But this is all hypothetical. I suppose we could take it to longbets.com, for kicks :) > You don't have to take my word for their impact. http://www.pulitzer.org/ http://www.pulitzer.org/ I'm really not trying to pick a fight, but you do realize that's another argument from authority, right?

It's only a partial paywall. A redirect, referer change or resetting cookie file would be able to fix their broken website when the time comes.

by dmn001 16y ago

It's only a partial paywall. A redirect, referer change or resetting cookie file would be able to fix their broken website when the time comes.

natrius 16y ago

If you read their articles enough to hit the paywall, why not just pay to support the product they're creating?

dmn001 16y ago
Information wants to be free.
- natrius 16y ago
  Journalists are the ones who free that information in the first place. The less remunerative that career is, the less information there will be. I think it helps to consider your subscription to be more of a donation than payment for a product. Then again, I work for a non-profit news organization. (Feel free to donate.)
- dandelany 16y ago
  Libre, not gratis.
thunk 16y ago
Partly because the news isn't the product, the audience is. And partly because it's too annoying. It'd be just another thing demanding attention. Unless their journalism magically becomes way more valuable to me, I'd just leave. There's already too much news to assimilate. The real irony is that the customers who're loyal enough to hit the paywall are the last ones the NYT should be charging. They're already paying attention in spades. Punish your real fans. That's the ticket.
- natrius 16y ago
  "Partly because the news isn't the product, the audience is." This doesn't make sense in the context you're using it in. If a company makes all of its money from ads, then sure, the audience provided to advertisers is the product. In this case, the Times is asking for the readers to pay money to read news, which pretty clearly makes the news the product. Most of the investigative journalism that has a national impact seems to originate from the New York Times and the Washington Post. If that isn't valuable to you, you're not paying attention.
  - thunk 16y ago
    The NYT online does make all its money on advertising. The current reality is that we are the product. > Most of the investigative journalism that has a national impact seems to originate from the New York Times and the Washington Post. If that isn't valuable to you, you're not paying attention. This is an argument from authority, or something. "Big, respectable, nationally impactful investigative journalism." (like cheerleading the Iraq War?) Nowadays, we can get the facts from a hundred other sources, and the situation on the ground is more likely to show up on Twitter first, raw and undiluted.
    - natrius 16y ago
      You can argue about the definition of "the product" all you want, but you're not explaining what your point is. You're making it seem like they're charging people to see ads. I'm fairly certain they'll make more money from the paywall fee than the ads for a given user. You don't have to take my word for their impact. http://www.pulitzer.org/ http://www.pulitzer.org/ RE: Iraq War — I never said they were perfect.
      - thunk 16y ago
        > I'm fairly certain they'll make more money from the paywall fee than the ads for a given user. And I'm betting the paywall will never go up. Eight months is a long time. But this is all hypothetical. I suppose we could take it to longbets.com, for kicks :) > You don't have to take my word for their impact. http://www.pulitzer.org/ http://www.pulitzer.org/ I'm really not trying to pick a fight, but you do realize that's another argument from authority, right?