I got an ad.... in the paid version of new york times.
I got an ad.... in the paid version of new york times.
I'm not going to deal with this, unsubscribing. I recommend everyone else to do the same, we can't let them get away with this. You can instead donate to an actually good news source, such as ProPublica. And nyt has a bunch of controversies, listed here. I can't support this with a clear conscience.
Silly rabbit, did you think paying for a subscription would protect from advertising forever?
I am old enough to remember when cable TV was sold to the masses on the premise that if we bought cable, we wouldn't have to see commercials, since our subscriptions would pay for the service.
It's a ratchet system; annoy you, convince you to pay to make the annoyance go away, then wait a while and introduce another annoyance.. and convince you to pay somre more on top of that to get rid of that annoyance... rinse, repeat.
Take to the seas, my lad (or lassie). yarrrrr.
Lassie :3
What are some good paywall blockers btw? 12ft.io doesn't seem to work with nyt.
Yeah 12ft.io had to block the NYT because the NYT threatened them I think
This one seems to work well... at least for nyt.
https://www.removepaywall.com/
Honestly I just wait for other sources without paywalls if I hit one to avoid giving them any clicks :)
See if you can find the article on http://web.archive.org/
I've been using archive.ph with good results
Bypass Paywalls, on github?
https://github.com/fortarch/bypass-paywalls-chrome-clean-magnolia1234-kiwibrowser?tab=readme-ov-file
Theres a plugin for a variety of browsers, i use FF on Android and Desktop..
Take to the seas
How do you apply this in the context of news articles?
Bypassing adblockers, paywalls etc. are often called 'theft' by mainstream media and their corporate owners. So adblockers (such as uBlock Origin) and similar methods, by the media owners' own definitions, can be considered piracy though that definition should be disputed as merely viewing a web page doesn't deny it from others.
What if I told you subscription based newspapers have always had ads
Posting some text and photos on the internet is not even close to being in the same league as printing and hand delivering content. They don't even have to sell ad space themselves to individual advertisers like they used to. Tbey don't even have an incentive to write quality stories. They just need some clickbait ai slop to get more clicks.
The NYT has been silencing columnists too critical of Trump https://contrarian.substack.com/p/departing-the-new-york-times
Time to unsubscribe.
Thanks for posting this. I didn't know the reason he left and assumed the NYT would have let him say why in his farewell column.
The New York Times has literally had ads on paid subscriptions... forever. Like literally hundreds of years.
Thats what you get for giving money to nazi enablers.
Nazi enablers? I don't doubt you, but I'd love to read more about it. May I see a source?
The New York TImes published over 200 pro-trump or pro-elon articles in 2024.
Then ... there is this: https://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/buried-by-the-times-the-holocaust-and-americas-most-important-newspaper
Max and Me
A similar thing happened to me recently with Max. I decided to treat myself and my family with the highest cost plan that had 4k quality, 4 (I think) simultaneous streams, and no ads.
A week into the subscription, we started getting random sports ads in the middle of our content. After an abnormally long discussion with their support folks because they didn't understand that I wasn't talking about the ads that show up BEFORE the content and that in fact I was talking about ads that interrupt the content in the middle of a show or movie, they asked that I send them video evidence, which I did.
Their response? Those aren't ads, those are previews for their other content.
So yeah, seems like a common theme here. These companies are scam artists and liars.
It's been like that on The Athletic ever since they got bought out by NYT. If they didn't knock the price of my annual sub down to $20 when I went to cancel it, I'd already have gotten rid of it. After this discount year though, I'm done.
Pay for the ads just like cable became. Give us all your information so we may better fleece you while you are at it.
I think the real question here is why you're paying for corporate media that's entirely propaganda for the GOP these days?
I did say I'm unsubscribing, fuck the GOP and nyt
Seems like it's all down to whether they paid more to show you their ad than you paid not to see it.
No. Its just greed. Because that math will always work out. If you pay 100 for the service and theycan make 1 extra for showing you ads they will choose the bigger number. They will tell you that its just one ad it's not that much. And you are paying to not see the one you havent seen. But soon it will be 2 ads. Then 3. Then a banner at the bottom. That is enshitification
They never corrected their bs claims about murdered babies and systematic rape on Oct 7. Neither of these is true. Mouthpiece for zionist propaganda. That's when I lost all trust in them.
I still have a subscription, which I recalled when I was forced to sign in to read an article last night. Now, I'm putting some thought into whether the balance of bullshit vs information has tipped too much.
The ads don't get me because of multiple ad-blockers, but I agree that paying for an online sub should nullify them. It's not like it costs anything to publish on the web vs printing an actual paper. Sure, servers and bandwidth, but for one article to a person paying for a subscription? Unjustifiable to me. Fuck capitalism. It's destroy[ing/ed] everything.
https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15621.doc.htm
Do you have a source that refutes this.
Sure, if you want me to do your homework for you, listen to all the episodes of these podcasts since Oct 7: Chapo Traphouse, TrueAnon, Bad Faith.
Wait, you surely don't have time to do that. Let me provide a similar UN finding, to be in kind with yours:
In May 22 the Associated Press published a report detailing two false accounts of sexual and gender-based violence on October 7.[139] One of the accounts was given by Yossi Landau, a longtime volunteer for the ultra-orthodox ZAKA paramedic and rescue group. Landau claimed that as he was working in Kibbutz Be'eri, he found a pregnant woman lying on the floor with her fetus stil attached to the umbilicated cord and removed from her body.[139] The AP reports that Landau then "went on to tell the story to journalists and was cited in outlets around the world."[139] ZAKA spokesperson Moti Bukjin said it took some time before they realized Landau's account was not true, and they told him to stop repeating it, however he continued to do so as he remains convinced it is true. The United Nations also confirmed Landau's account is false.[139] Along with other first responders, Landau also told journalists he had seen beheaded children and babies. However, the AP notes that "No convincing evidence had been publicized to back up that claim, and it was debunked by Haaretz and other major media outlets."[139]
I'm not suggesting that there was no sexual violence. I'm stating that the NYT ran bullshit stories and didn't retract them.
Gross. Why would you give money to those genocide deniers
That condo is pretty ugly anyways. Just a lot of big windows (which make the house super hot in summer and cold in winter) and sad beige.