Prepare for the New Paywall Era (theatlantic.com) 263
Alexis C. Madrigal, writing for The Atlantic: If the recent numbers are any indication, there is a bloodbath in digital media this year. Publishers big and small are coming up short on advertising revenue, even if they are long on traffic. [...] In a print newspaper or a broadcast television station, the content and the distribution of that content are integrated. The big tech platforms split this marriage, doing the distribution for most digital content through Google searches and the Facebook News Feed. And they've taken most of the money: They've "captured the value" of the content at the distribution level. Media companies have no real alternative, nor do they have competitive advertising products to the targeting and scale that Facebook and Google can offer. Facebook and Google need content, but it's all fungible. The recap of a huge investigative blockbuster is just as valuable to Google News as an investigative blockbuster itself. The former might have taken months and costs tens of thousands of dollars, the latter a few hours and the cost of a young journalist's time. That's led many people to the conclusion that supporting rigorous journalism requires some sort of direct financial relationship between publications and readers. Right now, the preferred method is the paywall. The New York Times has one. The Washington Post has one. The Financial Times has one. The Wall Street Journal has one. The New Yorker has one. Wired just announced they'd be building one. (Editor's note: CNN is building a paywall, too.) Many of these efforts have been successful. Publications have figured out how to create the right kinds of porosity for their sites, allowing enough people in to drive scale, but extracting more revenue per reader than advertising could provide.
It didn't work the first time (Score:3, Insightful)
And it won't work this time. You're just looking at a ton of closures and maybe some consolidation between whoever is left standing
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Too many people were using the HOV lanes in my state and tax revenue from gas sales dropped too low. Now they charge to use the HOV lanes, and no one uses them.
I can't see this turning out any differently.
Re:It didn't work the first time (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't feel like paying digital. Just seems less of value on digital.
Re:It didn't work the first time (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't feel like paying digital. Just seems less of value on digital.
For me it has nothing to do with the value of the content or digital/dead tree. I just don't want to pay for something that I'm accustomed to getting for free even if it's a bargain. Not entirely rational, but that's the 'logic' behind my motivation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'll never pay for anything advertiser-supported.
Newspapers? Magazines? Movies with previews? A ride on a bus with a logo on the side?
Re: (Score:2)
They want to do that on I-35 now.
Austin is run by a bunch of fucking idiots.
to make it work, go micropayment exchange (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been flogging this horse for maybe 20 years... central micropayments site for the media providers. Joe Surfer makes a deposit. every news site he now hits, there is a deduction to the provider to pay for the posting. why in hell can't they do this, and be assured of a wider, non-PO'ed audience providing cash?
Re:to make it work, go micropayment exchange (Score:4, Informative)
central micropayments site for the media providers.
There's your problem. There won't be one central micropayment provider. You'll end up like the e-wallet (PayPal, Apple Wallet, Samsung Pay) where there are multiples and users have to put money in multiple providers. That, or the content providers will need to have accounts with all of the micropay providers.
Re: (Score:2)
...well, until Visa, MC, Barclays, and/or Amex gets in on the act. Then it just slipstreams into the existing providers of CC/Debit payment services, and life goes on as usual.
Multiple micropay providers (Score:2)
or the content providers will need to have accounts with all of the micropay providers.
What practical problem do you see with expecting each publisher to have accounts with all of the micropay providers?
Re: (Score:2)
What practical problem do you see with expecting each publisher to have accounts with all of the micropay providers?
There is some amount of coding (and maintenance) work that needs to be done to add each provider to their website. Also, each provider may have different fees or rules that a website may not agree to.
Re:to make it work, go micropayment exchange (Score:5, Interesting)
Jake Surfer here... Not sure I can speak 100% for my brother Joe, but if I have to think, "Gee... I wonder if I'm just gonna get scammed out of half a penny with a bunch of clickbate if I follow this link," you can bet I'd be following a whole lot fewer links. Also, why am I giving someone an interest free loan so they can hold onto my money and deduct some of it for every piece of clickbate I get fed?
The problem is less lack of payment mechanism and more lack of quality / necessity. There are no shortage of places that provide reliable, relevant news. The supposed "journalistic integrity" that I might be willing to pay for gets eroded a little bit more every time ${majorNewsSite}.com parrots the prevailing party line without even a scrap of effort to contradict obvious lies and policy 180's.
There will be a lot more digital blood to bathe in before anything of value is lost.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Jake Surfer here... Not sure I can speak 100% for my brother Joe, but if I have to think, "Gee... I wonder if I'm just gonna get scammed out of half a penny with a bunch of clickbate if I follow this link," you can bet I'd be following a whole lot fewer links. Also, why am I giving someone an interest free loan so they can hold onto my money and deduct some of it for every piece of clickbate I get fed?
The problem is less lack of payment mechanism and more lack of quality / necessity. There are no shortage of places that provide reliable, relevant news. The supposed "journalistic integrity" that I might be willing to pay for gets eroded a little bit more every time ${majorNewsSite}.com parrots the prevailing party line without even a scrap of effort to contradict obvious lies and policy 180's.
There will be a lot more digital blood to bathe in before anything of value is lost.
I agree that clickbait will still be a problem. That's why it's good to support ${majorNewsSite}.
(BTW, the only ${majorNewsSite} that parrots the prevailing party line that I know of is Fox news. The others have all been branded with Trump's "fake news" label which is a sure sign that they must have spoken some truth to power.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, it's only Fox that does it... The others are bastions of objectivity. Seriously?
Adult Check: grown-ups can pay for nice things (Score:3)
I've been flogging this horse for maybe 20 years... central micropayments site for the media providers.
That existed 20 years ago, and it was called Adult Check. Subscribers gained access to all participating sites, and sites were paid per page view. I guess if you ignore the erotica on the network, you could explain the name as "Because grown-ups can pay for nice things."
The problem comes when a single company operates both an ad network and a micropayment network. Such an operator has an incentive to track viewers' browsing habits across the Internet in order to build a dossier on their interests. For examp
Re: (Score:3)
I've been flogging this horse for maybe 20 years... central micropayments site for the media providers. Joe Surfer makes a deposit. every news site he now hits, there is a deduction to the provider to pay for the posting. why in hell can't they do this, and be assured of a wider, non-PO'ed audience providing cash?
And then it becomes third party data subject to mass surveillance for use against you in court with the added bonus of demonstrating a monetary transaction across state lines. It is not like this is not already the case but why make it easier? No thanks.
Let me know when I can pay in untraceable cash.
Re: (Score:2)
Some say that ignorance is bliss...
I say ignorance is just ignorance.
A problem that has no easy solution (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a problem that needs to be solved. Since copying content has become easy, how do the people who create content get paid? How do news organizations pay reporters to investigate stories?
There are no easy solutions.
Re:A problem that has no easy solution (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A problem that has no easy solution (Score:5, Informative)
I think this is a good idea too. NYT's paywall is $15/mo. I presume Wash. Post is similar. That just two sites for $30. One quickly runs out of money to pay for a reasonable collection of different editorial stances and investigative journalism.
The current situation also means small sites that do not need much to spew their "contents" have an oversize influence. They do not have to pay for investigative journalism, or quality op-eds.
Re: (Score:2)
Returning to the Old Paradigm (Score:2)
Re:A problem that has no easy solution (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is a good idea too. NYT's paywall is $15/mo. I presume Wash. Post is similar.
This is the current problem with such sites -- that's too expensive. Back when you had to subscribe to newspapers, they didn't cost that much even with the additional expense of printing and distributing physical paper.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is a good idea too. NYT's paywall is $15/mo. I presume Wash. Post is similar.
This is the current problem with such sites -- that's too expensive. Back when you had to subscribe to newspapers, they didn't cost that much even with the additional expense of printing and distributing physical paper.
Actually, daily delivery subscriptions DID cost that much and more, at least for the big papers like the NYT, Wash Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, etc., particularly if the big fat Sunday edition was included. And that was still a bargain over buying a copy at the newsstand.
Adjust for inflation, $15/mo. is a deal.
I'd first say internet users have short memories, but we more remember everything being free, because it used to be slow and experimental and buggy and... mostly free of spam and trolls (yeah, ye
Re:A problem that has no easy solution (Score:5, Informative)
In 2001, NYTimes increased newsstand prices in southern california to $0.50 with $1.50 for sunday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02... [nytimes.com]
I have no idea how much a delivery subscription cost at that time.
That's $0.50 * 52 weeks * 6 days = $156.
Add Sunday for $1.50 * 52 weeks * 1 day = $78.
Add those and you get $234.
A $15/mo subscription is $180.
I am not sure how much of the NYT's costs come from the printing and distribution of phyisical newspapers, but I would have expected the prices to go down as a result of the digital editions.
Then again, as someone else said, their costs are subsidized by advertising, so they aren't really passing the straight costs onto their users anyway. That's why many sites still have advertising even for their paying subscribers, which is a deal breaker for me.
Re:A problem that has no easy solution (Score:5, Informative)
Then again, as someone else said, their costs are subsidized by advertising
Their costs were also heavily subsidized by classified ads [wikipedia.org]. Huge source of revenue for any newspaper, large or small, now completely gone thanks to Craigslist, e-bay, etc. etc. That's a large part of the revenue that has to be made up since the glory days before the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the current problem with such sites -- that's too expensive. Back when you had to subscribe to newspapers, they didn't cost that much even with the additional expense of printing and distributing physical paper.
Back in my paperboy days (mid 90s), 7-day delivery of the Boston Globe cost something like $5-$7/week, plus you had to tip the paper boy. The Sunday edition alone costed $1.50 in print. $15/mo for the online edition seems fairly reasonable in comparison, especially adjusted for inflation. I think we've just been conditioned to not pay for news over the past 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
The last time I subscribed to a major metro newspaper, it cost me $10/mo for the daily (the Sunday was extra). That's what I'm remembering. Of course, I haven't run it through the inflation calculator...
Re: (Score:3)
I would not trade all the negatives that come with single sign on dystopias just to fund screeds written by ideologues passing themselves off as journalists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So you're suggesting extending single signon to actually be a clearing house for paywalls? Not a bad idea.
This will end up with companies like Comcast or Cox that offer a "news bundle" service that you pay $50 a month for, and you get access to 10 different news sites. For an additional $10 a month, you get the premium package that includes Wall Street Journal and other sites.
Re: (Score:2)
So... Yo dawg, I heard you like paywalls, so I put some paywalls around your paywalls.
Re:A problem that has no easy solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Readers holding their money from information carriers will sink the carriers. You'll be left with spew, everywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
There are no easy solutions.
There are, the problem is the lack of human intelligence. A true independent media needs its own central bank to be immune to corporate influence, aka you'd build a media that had the ability to loan money to itself and build it into the system. That would be an anethema to the upper class however, you can see their feelings here about the common man:
Former national security advisor on his reservations of the political awakening of the masses [youtube.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
* I think imaginary property is an oxymoron; we only pretend that someone owns a mental construct, everywhere in the universe simultaneously forever
* I think creators should be given money for creating, perhaps even more than now; we like what's on git/s.overflow, sure, and in that vein we give thanks for every "good idea" since the dawn of mankind, they are the heroes of the species, not that anyone's sending royalties to the corpses of ancient greeks.
Those two can stand next to each other fine in my philo
Nope, just a simple one. (Score:3, Insightful)
Easy and simple are not the same thing. Easy was letting 3rd party companies manage advertisement sales (and of course get a cut) for the publisher.
Simple is going back to direct-sales marketing management. Let bloggers and YouTube use 3rd parties, NYT, WaPo, and more should be selling their valuable screen real-estate directly and reaping all the money from that.
I mean... damn people. Its not complex, just more work. Since the YouTube Adpocalypse many YouTubers have started doing sponsored content (many mo
Re: (Score:2)
If the Ads won't support the site for the visitors who elect Ads, then the problem would seem that the advertisers are not willing to pay enough to support the number of pages that visitors look at. Or the problem is that the content itself is not valuable enough to warrant visitors, or perhaps advertisers to be interested.
If the Paywall isn't working, why is that? Is the subscr
Combination of subscription and ad revenue (Score:3)
the problem would seem that the advertisers are not willing to pay enough to support the number of pages that visitors look at
Correct. This is the model of print newspapers, print magazines, and pay television. Neither subscription revenue alone nor advertising revenue alone is enough to fully fund the production of works of authorship without, say, making every pay TV channel as expensive as HBO. Only the sum of the two is sufficient.
Is the subscription price too high?
Yes in many cases. $25,000 per year for one article that happens to be exclusive to the Bloomberg subscription is far too high for the vast majority of individual readers. Even a more modest $4 per m
Would micropayments help? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do news organizations pay reporters to investigate stories?
I think that ship sailed years ago, and it wasn't falling advertising revenue (although I'm sure news organizations will try to blame that) -- It was plain corporate greed.
In today's reality-entertainment-fueled culture news organizations realized content filled more with Op-Ed than hard fact-finding still passed off as a "news report", and was much cheaper than investigating stories, staffing people to check facts before press, maintaining foreign bureaus, or flying reporters to locations to get the story.
Re: A problem that has no easy solution (Score:2)
You make it sound like they donâ(TM)t get paid. The thing is that content creators get paid or there would simply not be any content today.
How much does a reporter get paid? $50-100k/year and about $300k in gear, office space and supporting people. They have to cover maybe $5-15M/year for a good olâ(TM) regional reporting and publishing team.
They charge about 10k/hour of ad space regionally and about $1M for national coverage (thatâ(TM)s based on the price list for IHeartRadio networks so I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it? True, anyone can just throws words on the page, but creating and verifying accurate, factual, useful content takes time. And skill. And money.
It just downed on me (Score:2)
A lot of madness in the current public discussion comes from people reading too much biased news. Most of it is on the left but the right has a few juicy ones to keep the balance. What will happen if all of those are behind a paywall so there is not much inflammatory I mean investigative journalism to share and read for free?
Maybe it will be peace across the land again.
Re: (Score:2)
They've already solved it: They don't investigate anything. They pass off op-ed as news reporting.
Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I may sign up for one subscription, but I'm not going to get $10/month subscriptions for 20 different websites that I occasionally visit.
Re:Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the problem.
It would be nice if there could be some sort of "online news bundle". Pay $10 a month and have access to a dozen or so newspapers. The system would distribute that $10 as appropriate to the papers depending on which ones I read the most.
I don't want to have 15 different subscriptions! This is already becoming a problem in the streaming video world, with every company starting its own streaming service. I don't want it to become a problem for newspapers too.
I have this desire to support the industry but don't want to have so many subscriptions. Find a way to bundle things and I may bite.
Re: (Score:2)
Same with TV!
It would be nice if there could be some kind of TV bundle.
I don't want to have 15 different subscriptions to HBO, Starz, Netflix, Disney, NBC... Can't I just pay one company to bundle it all together?
Oh wait....
Re:Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
What is bad about having multiple subscriptions?
I want almost exactly the opposite of you. IMHO, nearly every single "bundle" in my life is a scam, where someone is using something I like to get me to subsidize something I think is lame and worthless. WTF do I care if I'm paying multiple entities? That's easy; we have computers now. The total is probably going to be less, and even if it weren't less, I would almost certainly get more of what I want.
What you are proposing is to lose all progress made in the last couple decades, and it sounds like I'd fund the people I like less than I do now.
I want everything as fine-grained and micro-managed by me, as possible. (And just like the billing "problem"(?), we have computers now so what's-possible is going to be damn impressive.) When I "vote with my wallet" I do not want to fucking vote party ticket!! Every time I'm manipulated into doing otherwise, it's with resentment.
Re: (Score:2)
At least with newspaper or news sites, we were already doing this. If I wanted the New York Times, I had to buy a copy, or get a subscription. If we can get day passes for the price (or less) of a paper, or get subscriptions similar
Re:Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I may sign up for one subscription, but I'm not going to get $10/month subscriptions for 20 different websites that I occasionally visit.
The problem isn't really the number of sites, it's the per site cost. I'm willing to get multiple subscriptions, but most websites have a VERY inflated sense of what their content is worth.
Re: (Score:2)
you had a handful of magazine subscriptions that you read, if you had time, cover to cover. You couldn't get a hundred different articles from 85 different magazine sent to you each month onesy-twosy.
That's what the grocery store and news stands were for. You could go and peruse through the magazines on display, and only buy the ones that had articles you were interested in.
Do libraries subscribe to popular sites? (Score:2)
Has it become common for public libraries in the United States, in both large and small cities and in states with both conservative- and liberal-leaning legislatures, to carry subscriptions to popular paywalled websites? Could I, say, visit a library branch, put in my library card number, and read WSJ.com articles without charge?
Re: (Score:2)
I will read whatever the fuck, from however many the fuck, sites I want to.
Then be prepared to pay however much the fuck, these sites charge.
The amount of news I need to see has decreased (Score:4, Interesting)
If there's one thing 2017 has taught me, it's that national and international news is not essential information.
Re: (Score:3)
If there's one thing 2017 has taught me, it's that accurate and factual national and international news is definitely essential information.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The amount of news I need to see has decreased (Score:5, Funny)
If there's one thing 2017 has taught me, it's that national and international news is not essential information.
Thank you for your valuable input, Mr President.
Re: (Score:2)
If there's one thing 2017 has taught me, it's that national and international news is not essential information.
Thank you for your valuable input, Mr President.
Indeed. From the horse's mouth, "I Love the Poorly Educated" [youtube.com].
Okay, and... (Score:2)
Honestly? I have no problems paying a sub to visit the WSJ and/or similar trusted, thorough news sources. Maybe as a bonus it'll knock the clickbait bullshit sites offline? Likely not, since many of those sites (especially political clickbait sites) usually have massive backers (e.g. MoveOn was launched and backed financially by George Soros, etc.)
Something to consider - maybe freebie sites that don't have a massive media presence in another medium (or some other visible and transparent means of non-biased/
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, there are too many people who are happy with the echo chambers they visit. They wouldn't recognize propaganda if it danced naked in front of them.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"I refuse to pay for anything on the internet."
Then you get nothing but the crap you deserve.
Re: (Score:3)
People STILL don't know what Net Neutrality is about.
Net Neutrality is not that all content should be free from content creators. Paywalls are just fine. Net Neutrality is about what the guy-in-the-middle can do, your ISP, the guy who's supposed to just shut up and deliver the packets, but who now thinks he's got the right to add a little extra for himself.
Net Neutrality rules prevent your ISP, and any intermediate provider between you and your content, from inspecting what it delivers to you before it de
Re: (Score:2)
Paywalls don't help those big expensive scoops (Score:2)
You still neeed only a young, cheap journalist to write the recap, but now he also needs a single cheap subscription for the paywall. Can you finance those expensive investigative journalistic scoops on those few subscriptions from other journalists?
DRM already tried this model and they lost: there only one cracker for the DRM was needed and the war was lost: the media is on bittorrent and OCHs. Good crackers are actually much much rarer than these cheap young journalists. It took almost around year for Den
Need a version of the Associated Press for the web (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Follow the lead of Webcomics: Patreon (Score:2)
Webcomics have a similar problem when it comes to revenue, and many of them have turned to voluntary donations like Patreon where you can schedule a regular monthly donation to your preferred sites.
Combined with some unobtrusive ads, it seems to work pretty well for lots of artists.
(some even add bonus content for those that donate over a certain amount, such as a browser cookie that disables the ads on their site for the month)
Disable javascript.... (Score:2)
Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible to render an abstract and credit card form with only HTML, CSS, and cookies.
Nothing will change. (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no wall (Score:2)
"Right now, the preferred method is the paywall. The New York Times has one. The Washington Post has one."
No, they haven't. They have a pay-cookie, delete it and there's no 'wall'.
Or just install one of the extensions that resets them immediately
Don't give a damn any more.... (Score:2)
"They" want money for that:
https://motherboard.vice.com/e... [vice.com]
and:
This website (www-blahblah) attempted to extract HTML5 canvas image data, which may be used to uniquely identify your computer."
- not from me.... severely scale down on that shit....
Ah - then Slashdot forces one to view on brain-damanged m.slashdot.org, no matter how huge your iPad is, not using that anymore either.
What was that:
https://hackernoon.com/more-th... [hackernoon.com]
anyone can claim that comments are fake - who controls that statement and the dispu
I'm prepared... (Score:2)
Got my back button primed and everything.
I appreciate that people have gotta make money, but I'm not paying for a news subscription. Someone needs to figure out a sane microtransaction platform sooner than later.
Cancelled my Wired print subscription around 2014 (Score:3)
Having subscribed since the second issue in 1993 or 1994, starting with the third issue. they finally priced me out of paper, despite design and my personal preference for the tactile experience kept me until my max price was finally exceeded.
Now I read the occasional article, but I found I wasn't that interested after all. A paywall will just make that a less frequent occurrence.
And nothing of value will be lost for me.
Of the other paywalled publications, most object to my adblocker so vehemently I avoid the 'free' stuff the would have permitted me to read. and nothing of value is lost there either.
I wish them luck. They will need it.
If this lets me use an ad-blocker... (Score:2)
If this lets me use an ad-blocker, then I welcome it. Truth be told, I already pay for a half-dozen or so sites I value anyway -- so for me, little would change.
Get what you, or someone else pays for (Score:2)
It's a conspiracy! (Score:2)
Don't make 40MB web pages (Score:2)
There's something to be said here about efficiency. If bandwidth is a commodity then conserve it, write pages smartly. Don't have auto playing videos, huge parallax backgrounds, giant click through splash pages because you arrogantly believe everyone should see your quote of the day... Instead have some consideration for each element you send to the user. Make better use of vector based graphics. Use bitmaps sparingly.
Not going to work. (Score:2)
How will all of the big blue media companies control the (growing) population of have-nots who can't afford the nickel? They are still going to vote....
BBC (Score:2)
If we has a sane public policy rather than rampant neoliberalism, we could do as the UK does and fund a BBC type news organization out of a tax.
Sell Bundled like Texture does for Magazines (Score:3)
The solution is bundle publications for a fixed price per month. Texture sells access to about 200 magazines for $10/month on phones and tablets, but not on the web.
See:
https://www.texture.com/ [texture.com]
Of course, this works much like the much derided Cable TV bundle. Don't think of it as a TV bundle. Think of it as Netflix for newspapers. The monthly costs are spread across enough content that purchasers do not feel ripped off even if they only read a subset of the offerings.
Here is the list of magazines Texture offers:
https://www.texture.com/all-ti... [texture.com]
Texture magazines are somewhat searchable. There are highlights and even some daily news.
What we don't know with Texture is how all the various publishers are being compensated from the monthly subscriptions fees readers are providing.
I won't pay $2 for a magazine on Google, but I will pay $10/month for access to over 200 magazines. It keeps the rest of family happy too.
I treat Paywalls (Score:2)
the same way I treat the full screen notices that demand I disable my ad-blocker.
I simply shut down the tab and move on.
If the story or information is worthy enough, it will be found on someone elses site.
Advertising IS the problem (Score:2)
Once upon a time I had multiple magazine subscriptions. Some cost upwards of $15 / month each.
As time went by, I noticed there were more ads in my magazine than there was actual content.
At which point I cancelled my subscriptions. Can't see any reason to pay a monthly fee for what amounted to nothing but advertising. :|
Would I be paying to get ads? (Score:2)
If I pay for one of these sites (WSJ, LAT, etc), will I be paying for the privilege of seeing ads, too?
Government-funded sources (Score:2)
BBC, CBC, NPR, etc. might end up being the only viable investigative news organizations.
You may now begin the flames.
Re:Until it backfires ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Until it backfires ... (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't mind paying, but I do mind paying AND being annoyed.
I dropped my NYT subscription because it showed the same unstoppable video, the same annoying adverts and the same Nicholas Kristof whining. I expected the latter but not the former.
And quit pestering me to get a gift subscription to somebody else.
Absolutely tasteless. So no money to them.
Re:Until it backfires ... (Score:5, Interesting)
You're joking, right? The internet devolved into a shithole of ads, malware, and scams from the very first days of Flash, popups, and those goddamned "punch the monkey" ads. And it's only gotten worse.
Over time, the degree to which you need to block 3rd party javascript, analytics, and other crap has gotten insane. I'd say the average web page has around 10 external parasites ... and I'm sorry, but I didn't sign up with them and didn't agree to their terms of service, which is why I block them ruthlessly.
Trusting any online entity with your actual name or financial information is just making you a target for getting your information stolen when they inevitably get hacked.
Sorry, but the greedy douchebags and assholes started this, and the reality is they've pretty much fucked up the whole game for everyone else.
For now, there's a remarkable amount of national broadcasters around the globe with good quality free content to let you get different editorial slants. But most media in the US these days is increasingly owned by a hand full of rich assholes, who I have no intention of enriching.
So, you'll forgive me for not giving a fuck, when ads have been a source of malware and other bullshit for almost as long as we've had web browsers. Kill off some of those parasites, give me an internet I can trust, and sites who I can rely on to have some decent security, and we'll talk.
But incompetent idiots with shit security are just the icing on the cake as far as why the paid internet can go fuck themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the reason that the internet is devolving is your unwillingness to pay. I pay for the New York Times, The Atlantic, The Economist, and The Washington Post. And they are well worth every penny.
Well, only one (the Economist) is. The rest have devolved into holdovers from the days of Yellow Journalism.
Now, the preceding opinion is *why* your assertion isn't as clear-cut. To wit, what you think to be "worth every penny", others may think of as propaganda organs for $politicalParty. But then, such people will happily pay for their favored news sites of choice. Or, like in my case, would only bother with paying for subs to sites (WSJ, Economist, and similar) that carefully unearth and curate the strai
Re: (Score:2)
"Those sites are few and far between"
So you've found some? Care to share?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as there are activist billionaires, I suspect the propaganda organs among them will still have income if they truly need it.
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow, newspapers thrived for hundreds of years by simply placing Ads on the periphery of the news stories. Nothing obscured your view of the story, nothing crawled across the bottom, etc. Advertisers provided the lions share of their revenue.
Now the Ads drive people away. They get blocked and advertisers see no return on their investment...hence the need for Paywalls.
Perhaps if your ads weren't so fucking obnoxious and intrusive.
Re: (Score:2)
I think one would have to be in their left mind to pay for CNN.
Of course, FoxNews is completely fair and balanced. Unbiased. Truthful. Not propaganda at all. (snicker)
It's really a matter of what echo chamber one wants to listen to. But CNN joined FoxNews in quality once CNN closed all their foreign bureaus and fired all their investigative reporters. It's all talking heads now. Talking heads all the way down. Like turtles.
Then there is