4 ms·

The news publishers are, of course, free to detect adblock or its effects, and refuse to deliver content to adblocker users. What could possibly go wrong? :) L

The news publishers are, of course, free to detect adblock or its effects, and refuse to deliver content to adblocker users. What could possibly go wrong? :) Let's not forget that e.g. Die Zeit actually has subscribers (i.e. my wife) who might not be amused and end their subscriptions. Why not seek different models for non-subscribers instead. E.g. for my native language (Dutch) Blendle [1] is becoming more and more popular. They are basically a paywall, but offer many newspapers, reasonable curation, a money-back guarantee (if an article is not what you expected), and recommendations based on e.g. Twitter followers. Monthly, I am probably spending the price of a subscription, because they have made it so easy to actually purchase content without ads and other annoyances. [1] https://blendle.com/ https://blendle.com/

a3n 12y ago
> who might not be amused and end their subscriptions. Exactly my point. "If you don't like what we say or do, then change the channel, end your subscription, etc." If they want to sit comfortably in the big freedom of speech chair, they're going to have to sit in the same room with consumers sitting in the freedom of listening chair. Of course that's not what they want. What they want is to have fine control on their end, but not on yours. I'm not worried about them. Someone else will figure out how to thrive in every new world that comes our way. EDIT: BTW I'm not opposed to your suggestion. Lots of ways to coexist in this new world of fine control. Forcing unwanted content down my throat, as publishers appear to currently prefer, will be resisted by me and others.
celticninja 12y ago
If you are a subscriber then you are already paying for the service, why the hell do you have to view the ads too? I can understand the need to show ads to people viewing content for free I just don't understand why charge an access fee and show ads. This is why people use ad blockers.
- a3n 12y ago
  > If you are a subscriber then you are already paying for the service, why the hell do you have to view the ads too? But your subscription isn't necessarily paying the amount of money that the publisher has decided it wants. In that case, it's divided its revenue between your subscription and selling ads. It's hoping that the ads won't annoy you enough to block them or leave. For most people that's probably true.
- freehunter 12y ago
  I ask myself that when I use the NYT app or visit their website. Why the hell am I paying every month to be shown ads? But then again: any magazine, cable channel, etc "old media" still follows that. If it existed before the Internet, you're likely paying for it and viewing its advertisements.

a3n 12y ago

> who might not be amused and end their subscriptions. Exactly my point. "If you don't like what we say or do, then change the channel, end your subscription, etc." If they want to sit comfortably in the big freedom of speech chair, they're going to have to sit in the same room with consumers sitting in the freedom of listening chair. Of course that's not what they want. What they want is to have fine control on their end, but not on yours. I'm not worried about them. Someone else will figure out how to thrive in every new world that comes our way. EDIT: BTW I'm not opposed to your suggestion. Lots of ways to coexist in this new world of fine control. Forcing unwanted content down my throat, as publishers appear to currently prefer, will be resisted by me and others.

celticninja 12y ago

If you are a subscriber then you are already paying for the service, why the hell do you have to view the ads too? I can understand the need to show ads to people viewing content for free I just don't understand why charge an access fee and show ads. This is why people use ad blockers.

a3n 12y ago
> If you are a subscriber then you are already paying for the service, why the hell do you have to view the ads too? But your subscription isn't necessarily paying the amount of money that the publisher has decided it wants. In that case, it's divided its revenue between your subscription and selling ads. It's hoping that the ads won't annoy you enough to block them or leave. For most people that's probably true.
freehunter 12y ago
I ask myself that when I use the NYT app or visit their website. Why the hell am I paying every month to be shown ads? But then again: any magazine, cable channel, etc "old media" still follows that. If it existed before the Internet, you're likely paying for it and viewing its advertisements.