4 ms·
They're a newspaper that charges customers to read it, which means they need to limit access to their services for people who haven't paid. Which means they nee
by smacktoward 7y ago
They're a newspaper that charges customers to read it, which means they need to limit access to their services for people who haven't paid. Which means they need a way to distinguish paying users from non-paying ones. Which means that they have to have some idea who you are when you access their services, so they can tell which services you should have access to and which you shouldn't.
It's funny, you never see anyone arguing that Netflix is under some kind of obligation to let everyone watch their programming anonymously for free.
- arkades 7y agoNetflix never put all their content out on the internet to be accessed anonymously for free. It's almost as if the news media created this expectation in their industry.
- Endy 7y ago>It's funny, you never see anyone arguing that Netflix is under some kind of obligation to let everyone watch their programming anonymously for free. That's because we don't bother talking about it, it just gets done. Why waste time on a trivial situation? Instead, talk about the NYT which is an important cultural institution. Plus I can read a free copy at my local library, or at NYPL, anonymously.
- Scoundreller 7y agoOr through their tor service.
- derefr 7y ago> Plus I can read a free copy at my local library, or at NYPL, anonymously. Now that would be an innovation: libraries providing access to commercial streaming-media services, through your library membership. Much like they provide access to scientific-journal subscriptions, or e-book services. With the proliferation of different streaming services, it almost seems like an inevitability.
- SomeOldThrow 7y agoTo my understanding this is already available at many public libraries.
- Endy 7y agoAudiobook streaming has become a standard service of local libraries.
- SomeOldThrow 7y agoAnd yet, this language is used to collect ad information on paid subscribers. So it’s 100% bullshit still.
- smacktoward 7y agoWhen did they ever claim to you that subscribing meant you wouldn't see ads anymore? You know that if you subscribe to the print version it has ads in it too, right?
- SomeOldThrow 7y agoWhen they claimed it was necessary to support the service. It’s absolutely not. Newspaper ads are not targeted. Anyway ads in any form still produce perverse incentives for a supposedly journalistic entity—I don’t know how anyone can read a newspaper that takes ad money and consider it unbiased.