3 ms·
NYTimes is also actively fighting against the use of the adblockers.
by nnd 8y ago
NYTimes is also actively fighting against the use of the adblockers.
- dwighttk 8y agofwiw nytimes is much easier to read with my adblocker on than washingtonpost or wsj.
- Nadya 8y agoBecause they can pocket additional money at the low, low cost of other peoples' mental health and integrity. Why wouldn't they fight against Ad Blockers? Ads are mental warfare and take on various different forms of manipulation. Many ads are often based on emotional manipulation rather than trying to improve your life by informing you about a good or service, they attempt to belittle you or make it seem like you'd be happy if you just bought their product. Your life is miserable without this product. This product will make you happy. I'm lovin' it. Tell me what useful information about MetLife this very emotionally manipulative commercial conveys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bdm4NBYxII https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bdm4NBYxII Their website URL? That's it. A 3 minute advertisement to emotionally manipulate you and provide you with a website URL.
- nnd 8y agoWouldn't publishers rather prefer if people paid for a subscription rather than shoving ads onto them? I think the real issue is that most users are not willing to pay for quality content. Instead, journalists are forced to produce click-bait junk that would give them lots of clicks and ad revenue. Am I missing some part of the picture here?
- Klover 8y agoWhat’s your whole idea? You completely ignore the comment you reply to, in order to apologise for ads. It’s terrible discourse. New York Times makes most of their money through subscriptions (you ignored this). They make additional money through ads (you pretend like that’s their only revenue).