4 ms·
You might be right that these plugins block cookies or the javascript that informs you that you've hit your limit. They've tried to make the paywall as permeab
by jeremymims 15y ago
You might be right that these plugins block cookies or the javascript that informs you that you've hit your limit.
They've tried to make the paywall as permeable as possible. For instance, if you follow a link from twitter or facebook it wouldn't count. But if you went to the NYTimes directly, it would.
The idea is to tax heavy users and those who have more money than time.
It's far from conclusive, but this trend is a disturbing one.
- dreamdu5t 15y agoWhy is this disturbing, exactly? Do you feel journalists should write articles for free?
- redthrowaway 15y agoBecause clearly paywalls are the only way a journalist can possibly get paid, right?
- dreamdu5t 15y agoNo, the other way is to sell articles individually. Why are you being obtuse? Why is purchasing by subscription bad, but selling articles individually good? There are benefits to both. Personally, I'd rather pay a subscription because I read a lot of articles and buying them individually would be a pain in the ass.
- lloydarmbrust 15y agoNewspapers have been subsidized by advertising for over 100 years, why are we trying to make money from subscriptions now?
- dreamdu5t 15y agoBecause advertising wasn't covering NYT's costs, and easily allows people to scrape and replicate your content elseware without ads. If NYT was able to stay profitable with ads on their site, they wouldn't have thrown up the paywall to begin with.