3 ms·

What does playing fair mean in this context? It would be one thing if you were a paid subscriber complaining that even paying sucks so you left, but it sounds l

What does playing fair mean in this context? It would be one thing if you were a paid subscriber complaining that even paying sucks so you left, but it sounds like you’re not.

hilbert42 7mo ago
I'd like to answer that in detail but it's impractical to do so here as it'd take pages. As a starter though begin with them not violating users' privacy. Another quick point: my observation is that the worse the ad problem the lower quality the content is. Cory Doctorow's "enshitification" encapsulates the problems in a nutshell.
- zahlman 7mo ago
  If you have enough detail for a blog post I'd heartily encourage you to submit it.
  - hilbert42 7mo ago
    I actually had one a while back but it became too taxing to keep it up to date. I've covered much of this stuff on HN though.
curtisblaine 7mo ago
You're right, it means nothing. But it cuts two ways. These sites are sending me bytes and I choose which bytes I visualize (via an ad blocker). Any expectation the website has about how I consume the content has no meaning and it's entirely their problem.
Aurornis 7mo ago
It is strange to hear these threats about avoiding websites from people who are not subscribers and also definitely using an ad blocker. News sites aren’t publishing their content for the warm fuzzy feeling of seeing their visitor count go up. They’re running businesses. If you’re dead set on not paying and not seeing ads, it’s actually better for them that you don’t visit the site at all.
- Eisenstein 7mo ago
  'Running a business' is not carte blanche to do whatever you like to get money, and it does not silence valid criticism. Businesses still exist in society and have to act accordingly. A primary mechanism that society has to enforce rules is criticism and shame.
  - WarmWash 7mo ago
    Have you ever entertained that maybe consumers should act accordingly too? That website is loaded with too many ads, I left it and am not going back. Not That website has too many ads, I'm getting an ad blocker and going back.
    - Eisenstein 7mo ago
      A business is not entitled to make people look at their ads. If they offer something in a publicly accessible place and they get ad eyeballs, good for them. If they don't, sucks for them. If they don't like it there are plenty of other markets they can do business in.
      - WarmWash 7mo ago
        You're not entitled to any webpage except your own...
        Eisenstein 7mo ago
        If they want to charge users with ad-blockers under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for unauthorized access for viewing non-protected pages then they should do that. Otherwise, you are wrong.
    - pacifika 7mo ago
      That’s confusing a webpage that’s rendered by the user with a pdf
CommenterPerson 7mo ago
I am a paid subscriber to NYT and have been reading it paper / internet for 30+ years. It is an Enshittification winner in terms tracking and click bait. It doesn't feel like a serious news outlet anymore, feels like Huff Post or similar.
- throwawayffffas 7mo ago
  Yes this, I was a subscriber for about a decade even back then an adblocker was required for sane reading even with a subscription. I cant imagine what it looks like without an adblocker these days.

What does playing fair mean in this context? It would be one thing if you were a paid subscriber complaining that even paying sucks so you left, but it sounds like you’re not.

hilbert42 7mo ago

I'd like to answer that in detail but it's impractical to do so here as it'd take pages. As a starter though begin with them not violating users' privacy. Another quick point: my observation is that the worse the ad problem the lower quality the content is. Cory Doctorow's "enshitification" encapsulates the problems in a nutshell.

zahlman 7mo ago
If you have enough detail for a blog post I'd heartily encourage you to submit it.
- hilbert42 7mo ago
  I actually had one a while back but it became too taxing to keep it up to date. I've covered much of this stuff on HN though.

curtisblaine 7mo ago

You're right, it means nothing. But it cuts two ways. These sites are sending me bytes and I choose which bytes I visualize (via an ad blocker). Any expectation the website has about how I consume the content has no meaning and it's entirely their problem.

Aurornis 7mo ago

It is strange to hear these threats about avoiding websites from people who are not subscribers and also definitely using an ad blocker. News sites aren’t publishing their content for the warm fuzzy feeling of seeing their visitor count go up. They’re running businesses. If you’re dead set on not paying and not seeing ads, it’s actually better for them that you don’t visit the site at all.

Eisenstein 7mo ago
'Running a business' is not carte blanche to do whatever you like to get money, and it does not silence valid criticism. Businesses still exist in society and have to act accordingly. A primary mechanism that society has to enforce rules is criticism and shame.
- WarmWash 7mo ago
  Have you ever entertained that maybe consumers should act accordingly too? That website is loaded with too many ads, I left it and am not going back. Not That website has too many ads, I'm getting an ad blocker and going back.
  - Eisenstein 7mo ago
    A business is not entitled to make people look at their ads. If they offer something in a publicly accessible place and they get ad eyeballs, good for them. If they don't, sucks for them. If they don't like it there are plenty of other markets they can do business in.
    - WarmWash 7mo ago
      You're not entitled to any webpage except your own...
      - Eisenstein 7mo ago
        If they want to charge users with ad-blockers under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for unauthorized access for viewing non-protected pages then they should do that. Otherwise, you are wrong.
  - pacifika 7mo ago
    That’s confusing a webpage that’s rendered by the user with a pdf

CommenterPerson 7mo ago

I am a paid subscriber to NYT and have been reading it paper / internet for 30+ years. It is an Enshittification winner in terms tracking and click bait. It doesn't feel like a serious news outlet anymore, feels like Huff Post or similar.

throwawayffffas 7mo ago
Yes this, I was a subscriber for about a decade even back then an adblocker was required for sane reading even with a subscription. I cant imagine what it looks like without an adblocker these days.