3 ms·

most of these websites are thieves too, they steal your data, while still displaying as much ads as they can, and they want you to pay to access their content a

most of these websites are thieves too, they steal your data, while still displaying as much ads as they can, and they want you to pay to access their content as well, fuck that.

KarlKemp 7y ago
I’m pretty sure they hate the ads even more than you do. But margins in publishing are thin, and often negative. Nobody is earning money in that business, yet people are inventing this scenario of exploitation to have something to point to when they need to justify their acts to others or themselves. Google ran a trial to let you opt out of ads and pay the difference, exactly what people in these online discussions have always proclaimed to be waiting for. They got around a hundred takers. Turns out, nobody is willing to pay what it actually costs to produce the content they want to read. Local journalism is already dead in many regions, and there’s a study out there showing that corruption tends to increase in these cities, costing several times as much as the local paper ever did, not even including the non-monetary damages of the hollowing out of society.
- tareqak 7y ago
  Google Contributor still exists today: https://contributor.google.com/v/marketing https://contributor.google.com/v/marketing
neltnerb 7y ago
I canceled a honest to god subscription to a newspaper online because they decided that even if I was logged in it was necessary to subject me to dozens of 3rd party trackers. If all they wanted was information about what articles were doing well it'd be... okay, sure I guess though I wish they didn't decide what to publish based on that. But knowingly allowing their paying subscribers (and we're talking over a hundred dollars a year here for web-only) to be tracked by third parties is going too far. What's the point in paying for a subscription if they're going to sell my private data for pennies even when I'm giving them decent money for access? It's insulting. Now I just delete their cookies and read for free (and without tracking). I'd rather give them money, but after two years of paying for a subscription I don't feel too bad about it. I made clear to them why I was canceling my subscription -- if I'm paying you I'm not okay with you double dipping to sell my personal information. People viewing for free, okay, sure, I get it you want to make a little bit at least. Don't subject paying customers to this though. ... I say as I place orders on Amazon. Oh well. Being half way self-consistent is better than not at all.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  > I canceled a honest to god subscription to a newspaper online because they decided that even if I was logged in it was necessary to subject me to dozens of 3rd party trackers. I also have issues with this on a news site where I pay for. If I pay, please quit tracking me. It provides incentive to subscribe, and shows a honesty in the matter.
  - neltnerb 7y ago
    I kind of assume it's because news websites don't exactly have the best web designers working for them. Might just be technically hard to make it so that javascript doesn't get loaded when someone is logged in. But if they can't spend the effort to do that, I guess their loss. Or gain, I doubt they lose many subscribers over this. Probably they just figure no one cares and they're probably mostly right.

most of these websites are thieves too, they steal your data, while still displaying as much ads as they can, and they want you to pay to access their content as well, fuck that.

KarlKemp 7y ago

I’m pretty sure they hate the ads even more than you do. But margins in publishing are thin, and often negative. Nobody is earning money in that business, yet people are inventing this scenario of exploitation to have something to point to when they need to justify their acts to others or themselves. Google ran a trial to let you opt out of ads and pay the difference, exactly what people in these online discussions have always proclaimed to be waiting for. They got around a hundred takers. Turns out, nobody is willing to pay what it actually costs to produce the content they want to read. Local journalism is already dead in many regions, and there’s a study out there showing that corruption tends to increase in these cities, costing several times as much as the local paper ever did, not even including the non-monetary damages of the hollowing out of society.

tareqak 7y ago
Google Contributor still exists today: https://contributor.google.com/v/marketing https://contributor.google.com/v/marketing

neltnerb 7y ago

I canceled a honest to god subscription to a newspaper online because they decided that even if I was logged in it was necessary to subject me to dozens of 3rd party trackers. If all they wanted was information about what articles were doing well it'd be... okay, sure I guess though I wish they didn't decide what to publish based on that. But knowingly allowing their paying subscribers (and we're talking over a hundred dollars a year here for web-only) to be tracked by third parties is going too far. What's the point in paying for a subscription if they're going to sell my private data for pennies even when I'm giving them decent money for access? It's insulting. Now I just delete their cookies and read for free (and without tracking). I'd rather give them money, but after two years of paying for a subscription I don't feel too bad about it. I made clear to them why I was canceling my subscription -- if I'm paying you I'm not okay with you double dipping to sell my personal information. People viewing for free, okay, sure, I get it you want to make a little bit at least. Don't subject paying customers to this though. ... I say as I place orders on Amazon. Oh well. Being half way self-consistent is better than not at all.

Fnoord 7y ago
> I canceled a honest to god subscription to a newspaper online because they decided that even if I was logged in it was necessary to subject me to dozens of 3rd party trackers. I also have issues with this on a news site where I pay for. If I pay, please quit tracking me. It provides incentive to subscribe, and shows a honesty in the matter.
- neltnerb 7y ago
  I kind of assume it's because news websites don't exactly have the best web designers working for them. Might just be technically hard to make it so that javascript doesn't get loaded when someone is logged in. But if they can't spend the effort to do that, I guess their loss. Or gain, I doubt they lose many subscribers over this. Probably they just figure no one cares and they're probably mostly right.