4 ms·
Forgive me if I'm missing the point of your question, but isn't the answer obviously ads? Even if they couldn't be blocked, at least they don't prevent me from
by happytoexplain 7y ago
Forgive me if I'm missing the point of your question, but isn't the answer obviously ads? Even if they couldn't be blocked, at least they don't prevent me from accessing the content. I guess ideally there would be ads with a pay option to remove them, but that's just from a consumer point of view.
Regardless, I realize we shouldn't be complaining about paywalls in comments. I just wanted to address your question.
- 52-6F-62 7y agoWhen you block the ads, the publication doesn't receive revenue from them as the impression is lost. Then, the publication suffers and the quality falls.
- kidintech 7y agoBut this way the people who don't have a subscription (which we can safely assume to be GREATER than those who have ad blockers) don't even open the page, so they still don't get any revenue. ???
- 52-6F-62 7y agoI put that on par with: because I'm not paying for an Aston Martin, I don't get to drive one to work every day. Thus, I have nothing to contribute to discussion on daily drivers of Aston Martin cars. Just because I want to join the discussion doesn't mean I'm entitled to one of their cars anyway. Aston Martin isn't weeping for me because I don't get to drive one of their cars. Why would the publication just give away the product of their labour for free? [Especially the WSJ. That's against their cornerstone beliefs AFAIU.]