5 ms·
I find the paywalls on NYT and WSJ a bit bizzare to begin with, especially now that they're closing the loopholes to read an article now and then. Certainly any
by dougmwne 7y ago
I find the paywalls on NYT and WSJ a bit bizzare to begin with, especially now that they're closing the loopholes to read an article now and then. Certainly any business has the right to charge for its content, but as newsrooms have shrunk and journalists have been retrained for the clickbait era, these articles are typically worthless fluff or outrage porn. Though I can't actually read this article, I assume that the catchy title references a breif moment from an interview, not a deep cultural analysis. I would pay for the latter, but not the former.
- dannyw 7y agoI’ve never seen a NYT paywall in Australia. Maybe it’s geo specific?
- mcv 7y ago> I assume that the catchy title references a breif moment from an interview, not a deep cultural analysis. That assumption is correct.
- Nasrudith 7y agoI suspect it is a result of being afraid of cannabalising their subscription base and internal disputes between philosophies. I suspect the paywall leaks are a left hand vs right hand thing - if they make it fully accessible they get maximium click traffic but the boss gets pissed off about "giving money away". If they make it fully sealed Webspiders can't get there and this kills the traffic.