3 ms·

I know it is not the same as ‘prove who you are to surf’ but when I open the page and am greeted with a note that explains that, in exchange for reading the art

I know it is not the same as ‘prove who you are to surf’ but when I open the page and am greeted with a note that explains that, in exchange for reading the article, The New Yorker will share my personal information with 219 different partners, you sort of wonder where the anonymity they are so worried about has gone. >> "We, and our 219 partners use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences. We may also use these technologies to gauge the effectiveness of advertising campaigns, target advertisements, and analyze website traffic. Some of these technologies are essential for ensuring the proper functioning of the service or website and cannot be disabled, while others are optional but serve to enhance the user experience in various ways. We, in collaboration with our partners, store and/or access information on a user's device, including but not limited to IP addresses, unique identifiers, and browsing data stored in cookies, in order to process personal data."

xethos 1y ago
The writers and editors understand that privacy is central to their lifestyle and work - few sources will allow exclusively on-the-record interviews. The accountants that pay the writers and editors believe that, to make the math work of "Cheap enough that a viable number of subscribers will pay", the subscription must be ad-subsidized. These are two seperate groups, and lumping them in to call them both hypocritical is lazy in thought, or ignorant in recognizing that the New Yorker is more than one person. Yes, change should start at the paper running the story. The fact they haven't yet convinced all their subscribers or accountants, and ~~possibly not even~~ presumably the public at large, does not detract from their point. Edited, but struck-through instead of deleted

xethos 1y ago

The writers and editors understand that privacy is central to their lifestyle and work - few sources will allow exclusively on-the-record interviews. The accountants that pay the writers and editors believe that, to make the math work of "Cheap enough that a viable number of subscribers will pay", the subscription must be ad-subsidized. These are two seperate groups, and lumping them in to call them both hypocritical is lazy in thought, or ignorant in recognizing that the New Yorker is more than one person. Yes, change should start at the paper running the story. The fact they haven't yet convinced all their subscribers or accountants, and ~~possibly not even~~ presumably the public at large, does not detract from their point. Edited, but struck-through instead of deleted