| |||||||||||||
Doctorow: The Curious Case of Internet Privacy (Technology Review)Doctorow: The Curious Case of Internet Privacy (Technology Review)Posted Jun 9, 2012 10:45 UTC (Sat) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148)In reply to: Doctorow: The Curious Case of Internet Privacy (Technology Review) by ballombe Parent article: Doctorow: The Curious Case of Internet Privacy (Technology Review)
Yes, it is quite obvious to me that this site exists because of free software, much like Groklaw exists because of legislation targeting Linux, Lifehacker exists because others write software, the Wall Street Journal exists because businesses are doing business, etc. etc. That reporters depend on the reported is true by definition, and so it's not that interesting. It also has very little to do with the quality of the reporting in question
This site really exists because someone takes to the time and energy to research, write, and edit the content. It's a valuable service and the quality of this site is in my opinion superior to any other site writing about Linux. To suggest that charging a subscription fee for such content is akin to extortion is just absurd.
(Log in to post comments)
Doctorow: The Curious Case of Internet Privacy (Technology Review) Posted Jun 9, 2012 23:08 UTC (Sat) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]
> To suggest that charging a subscription fee for such content is akin to extortion is just absurd.
This may explain why nobody made that claim.
Doctorow: The Curious Case of Internet Privacy (Technology Review) Posted Jun 9, 2012 23:49 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
what do you call this statement
"Yeah, so first they bombard me with annoying stuff, then they try to extort money from me to stop the discomfort they intentionally caused me in the first place."
Doctorow: The Curious Case of Internet Privacy (Technology Review) Posted Jun 11, 2012 10:54 UTC (Mon) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]
The OP is not complaining about having to pay to access content, but rather to have to pay not to receive ads (quite the opposite in fact).
When it is so easy to install ads filtering technology, attempt to extract money from users unable to do so can be aptly described as extortion.
And for those not blocking the ads out of respect of LWN, this is not economically viable: instead just buy an extra "starving hacker" LWN subscription, this will get more money to LWN while costing you less in the long run. Adding intermediary always increase cost.
Doctorow: The Curious Case of Internet Privacy (Technology Review) Posted Jun 11, 2012 11:14 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
given that paid subscribers of LWN do not see advertisements, if he was willing to pay he wouldn't be worrying about the ads
Doctorow: The Curious Case of Internet Privacy (Technology Review) Posted Jun 11, 2012 12:18 UTC (Mon) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]
This is untrue: at the lowest subscription levels, subscribers still see the ads.
|
|||||||||||||