I took advantage of the Post and NYT's price reduction. Paying something like $10-$15 a month is pretty much a no-brainer. But at $30, I don't know if I'd read it enough to justify the cost.
I am on my third month as a paying subscriber, and it is worth it to me. I am lower-middle class, so my budget is pretty tight. I wouldn't mind a discount!
Because if it's important, I'll hear about it somewhere else. And if it's interesting, I can find other articles. Content is a dime a dozen these days, why would I pay for it?
highly unlikely unless there is competition and if there is competition, you'd now have to pay two outlets to sustain the competition. There might be more valid factors to bring the price down, but this is the first I could think of.
As someone who despises BuzzFeed this article was about something I didn't already know about and was both somewhat interesting and informative. I liked it. Not every piece needs to be investigative reporting nor a rehash of reddits front page. This was a good example of middle ground
Buzzfeed is in a similar land as Gawker was sometimes. Yeah, a lot of what they post is trash, but sometimes they talk about something everyone else isn't talking about.
We can make fun of Buzzfeed (I encourage it), but there's no reason to trash a reasonably interesting article solely based on its source.
I have a lot of respect for WSJ for actually having a paywall. I find this a lot more honest than the ad-based "social contract".
Never will I understand the moral obligation to allow a third party to try to manipulate me into buying something unrelated that I don't need in order to be allowed to read what I actually want to read. If you don't want me to read something without paying, then do just that. Don't try to control and subvert my computer to show me ads.
So wait- thousands of people are openly confessing to "hacking" into protected computers via unauthorized access methods? Isn't this a criminal offense when perpetrated over state lines, a violation of the computer fraud and abuse act..? And how about fraud, conspiracy, illegitimately stealing services, and the like?
Meanwhile, OTHER people-- security researches, trolls, whoever-- some maybe have told the media about private data being shared on open links-- they get to go to jail.
It's almost like criminal laws are selectively enforced against people who corporate and powerful special interests don't like, and flagrantly ignored when broken by members of the establishment.
This reminds me of the part in Batman Begins where Bruce Wayne uses anonymous shell companies to buy up Wayne Inc.'s shares while simultaneously being someone who brutalizes street criminals.
28 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 71.3 ms ] threadhighly unlikely unless there is competition and if there is competition, you'd now have to pay two outlets to sustain the competition. There might be more valid factors to bring the price down, but this is the first I could think of.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/xray/dgkdfehohjdbm...
0.https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/the-tennis-racket?utm_te...
We can make fun of Buzzfeed (I encourage it), but there's no reason to trash a reasonably interesting article solely based on its source.
Never will I understand the moral obligation to allow a third party to try to manipulate me into buying something unrelated that I don't need in order to be allowed to read what I actually want to read. If you don't want me to read something without paying, then do just that. Don't try to control and subvert my computer to show me ads.
Meanwhile, OTHER people-- security researches, trolls, whoever-- some maybe have told the media about private data being shared on open links-- they get to go to jail.
It's almost like criminal laws are selectively enforced against people who corporate and powerful special interests don't like, and flagrantly ignored when broken by members of the establishment.
Much like white-collar crimes are punished way lighter in comparision with same-scale crimes of other sorts, even in the law itself.