3 ms·

No disagreement on crappy readability and accessibility. Never an excuse for that, it's just dumb, bad to users and even bad for business. But if you're implyi

No disagreement on crappy readability and accessibility. Never an excuse for that, it's just dumb, bad to users and even bad for business. But if you're implying 'shouldn't get ads' because you pay... I can get a sub at $4 a month. Don't think that quite covers costs. So I can certainly imagine how they'd still show me ads even if I pay and accept that. The sub is geared not for removal of ads, but rather the option of reading more than the limited few articles a month you can read for free. (which is extremely easy to circumvent as they have no login system but that's another story).

Tloewald 12y ago
I'm happy -- well, not incensed -- to get ads that are well-implemented. I'm paying $4/month and purposely chose not to get a physical copy (which was offered for free). It's depressing if I'm not covering their costs and then some. The New Yorker's online ads are increasingly obtrusive, including ads in the article body that are seemingly designed to be clicked accidentally (which doesn't benefit the advertiser).