Post #1425996

2026-04-11 20:14 UTC

@cobweb This is really difficult. No-one wants to give out their private info, but news sites are trying to make money and don't want to give away their content for free. Why should they employ an entire newsroom to research and report only to give it away for free? If you don't want to subscribe then you have to pay for advertising or no-one is going to pay for the service and it won't exist. But...I get around this, I don't subscribe or pay, why should I pay when I can get around it?

Replies (2)

@MostlyTato@mstdn.social 2026-04-11 20:17

@cobweb The issue here is that news services have across the board failed to understand how to make their services worth the money that they are asking for with a subscription, because they belong to the old world of newspapers that have comprehensively failed to adapt to the internet. They need to provide a better service that is actually worth paying for without exploiting private info. And that will never happen. So the game continies.

Open ##1425997
@libroraptor@mastodon.nz 2026-04-11 21:19

@MostlyTato @cobweb I'd be quite happy with advertising if it weren't intrusive. I still read the ads in paper newspapers. But I can't even read the article in the on-line ones, even the same newspaper, without blockers. And then there are the news sites with auto-play videos. What kind of arsehole makes those? Easy answer: the kind whose news I won't read.

Open ##1425998