5 ms·

Now NYT disables reading from incognito. Lame. http://archive.is/cF01U http://archive.is/cF01U

techntoke 7y ago
They've been lame every since implementing article limits. It's the freaking news. Who wants to pay to read the news, especially when the articles are shared all over the web?
- realbarack 7y ago
  I pay to read the news because I prefer to get information from high-quality organizations that I trust to hire skilled, relatively objective journalists who will work hard to accurately report a story. So much of unpaid journalism is bloggers re-hashing the work of these big(ger)-budget news agencies, often with less clarity and more partisan slant. Not to say NYT, WaPo, WSJ and other high-quality paid sources are perfect but they are far better than the free competition.
  - staticautomatic 7y ago
    The NY Times doesn't exactly have a consistent record of skilled, relatively objective reporting.
    - realbarack 7y ago
      Are there specific instances you have in mind? I actually think they do pretty good job on the whole.
      - staticautomatic 7y ago
        Sure. Two of the most egregious examples are the early coverage of the Vietnam war and basically all of the coverage of the U.S. meddling in Latin American politics. There's also its long track record of uncritical coverage of the so-called "war on terror", especially during Obama's tenure. When not busy toeing the military-industrial line, the Times is happy to report that there's still a genuine debate about whether climate change is real [1] and that people who have flatly been accused of rape are simply having "#metoo problems." [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+"debate+over+climate+change" https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+"debate+o...
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    All true but most people don't want all their news from one outlet any more.
    - realbarack 7y ago
      Yeah. It sucks that there's not a great solution here (at least not one that I know of; I haven't looked to closely at the various buffet-style options). Currently I pay for three subscriptions: one local (Long Beach Press-Telegram) one regional (LA Times) and one national (NY Times).
- danso 7y ago
  Because it costs money to pay the professionals who report and write the articles?
  - techntoke 7y ago
    I thought that they got most of that money from the companies and influencers paying them to write stories and passing it as news?
    - danso 7y ago
      Such as?
joemaller1 7y ago
Logging in sort of defeats the point of private mode.
- eli 7y ago
  Most people were using private mode to read more articles than they paywall allows without paying for a subscription.
- untog 7y ago
  And incognito mode sort of defeats the point of a paywall. Not defending it, but the motivations are pretty clear here.
gamblor956 7y ago
WaPo has been doing that for a few months. LATimes started doing that this week as well. Use Firefox's reader mode. You might need to refresh once or twice to get the full NYT article in reader mode.
18pfsmt 7y ago
This is an off-topic comment that is distracting from the topic-at-hand. For a "hacker," one just disables scripts from running from that domain.
- justAnotherNET 7y ago
  Mods please remove this comment as off topic
sweetcherrypie 7y ago
Turn off JS and open in either private/regular window: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/disable-javascript/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/disable-javas...
mschuster91 7y ago
How do these work anyway? Guess they're running some feature checks as the (probably aged to hell) webview in the HN or reddit app I use always hits that wall.
kevincrane 7y ago
Anecdotally, I've also found this link helpful if you find yourself hitting NYT paywalls in the future: https://www.nytimes.com/subscription https://www.nytimes.com/subscription

They've been lame every since implementing article limits. It's the freaking news. Who wants to pay to read the news, especially when the articles are shared all over the web?

realbarack 7y ago
I pay to read the news because I prefer to get information from high-quality organizations that I trust to hire skilled, relatively objective journalists who will work hard to accurately report a story. So much of unpaid journalism is bloggers re-hashing the work of these big(ger)-budget news agencies, often with less clarity and more partisan slant. Not to say NYT, WaPo, WSJ and other high-quality paid sources are perfect but they are far better than the free competition.
- staticautomatic 7y ago
  The NY Times doesn't exactly have a consistent record of skilled, relatively objective reporting.
  - realbarack 7y ago
    Are there specific instances you have in mind? I actually think they do pretty good job on the whole.
    - staticautomatic 7y ago
      Sure. Two of the most egregious examples are the early coverage of the Vietnam war and basically all of the coverage of the U.S. meddling in Latin American politics. There's also its long track record of uncritical coverage of the so-called "war on terror", especially during Obama's tenure. When not busy toeing the military-industrial line, the Times is happy to report that there's still a genuine debate about whether climate change is real [1] and that people who have flatly been accused of rape are simply having "#metoo problems." [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+"debate+over+climate+change" https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+"debate+o...
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  All true but most people don't want all their news from one outlet any more.
  - realbarack 7y ago
    Yeah. It sucks that there's not a great solution here (at least not one that I know of; I haven't looked to closely at the various buffet-style options). Currently I pay for three subscriptions: one local (Long Beach Press-Telegram) one regional (LA Times) and one national (NY Times).
danso 7y ago
Because it costs money to pay the professionals who report and write the articles?
- techntoke 7y ago
  I thought that they got most of that money from the companies and influencers paying them to write stories and passing it as news?
  - danso 7y ago
    Such as?

joemaller1 7y ago

Logging in sort of defeats the point of private mode.

eli 7y ago
Most people were using private mode to read more articles than they paywall allows without paying for a subscription.
untog 7y ago
And incognito mode sort of defeats the point of a paywall. Not defending it, but the motivations are pretty clear here.

gamblor956 7y ago

WaPo has been doing that for a few months. LATimes started doing that this week as well. Use Firefox's reader mode. You might need to refresh once or twice to get the full NYT article in reader mode.

18pfsmt 7y ago

This is an off-topic comment that is distracting from the topic-at-hand. For a "hacker," one just disables scripts from running from that domain.

justAnotherNET 7y ago
Mods please remove this comment as off topic

sweetcherrypie 7y ago

Turn off JS and open in either private/regular window: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/disable-javascript/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/disable-javas...

mschuster91 7y ago

How do these work anyway? Guess they're running some feature checks as the (probably aged to hell) webview in the HN or reddit app I use always hits that wall.

kevincrane 7y ago

Anecdotally, I've also found this link helpful if you find yourself hitting NYT paywalls in the future: https://www.nytimes.com/subscription https://www.nytimes.com/subscription