Tt post aug 11, 2017 b
"But installing software to defeat their (crappy) protections to me is no different than using pirated Microsoft Office or file sharing services to download music."
Except that pirating software is illegal, and modifying web browser settings is not illegal. We have two drastically different views of the web.
And nothing needs to be installed to bypass the Blade's paywall. Disabling JavaScript can be done within the web browser's settings.
How in the hell does disabling JavaScript equal stealing?
You may not need to disable JavaScript. I think that simply clearing your browser cookies for the Blade website bypasses the paywall.
When clearing cookies or disabling JavaScript bypasses the article limit, then that's not a paywall. I don't know what it is besides lame.
Here's an example of a real paywall:
https://www.theinformation.com
I assume that using ad-blockers is also equal to stealing.
Many media orgs use a business model where they give away all of their content for free, and then they rely on digital ad revenue.
Blocking ads prevents the media orgs from making money. According to some people, that's a form of stealing or financial harm.
But you don't need to install ad-blockers. Disabling JavaScript from within the browser will block most ads.
I guess that web browsers, such as Lynx should be outlawed, since Lynx does not support JavaScript.
With Lynx, a user needs to install nothing and do nothing to block ads and bypass alleged "paywalls." Lynx is so limited that it has no choice but to ignore those things.
Blocking ads, blocking trackers, and blocking JavaScript can be viewed as safe, secure web surfing, especially for users who like some amount of privacy.
https://www.eff.org/privacybadger
Privacy Badger is a browser add-on that stops advertisers and other third-party trackers from secretly tracking where you go and what pages you look at on the web. If an advertiser seems to be tracking you across multiple websites without your permission, Privacy Badger automatically blocks that advertiser from loading any more content in your browser. To the advertiser, it's like you suddenly disappeared.
It's not my fault that media orgs subscribe to possibly nefarious third party digital advertising systems. The Blade may be unaware of the crap that their site forces onto readers, but it's still the Blade's fault because it's their website.
If you want to support the Blade, then best thing to do may be to subscribe to Buckeye cable TV and/or Buckeye's internet access.
In my opinion, a person who pays for Buckeye TV/internet but does not pay for the Blade is still doing more for the Blade than the person who pays for the Blade and gets their TV and internet access elsewhere.
The Blade should adopt a 100-percent, hard paywall with no way to bypass it, except by subscribing. No free stories should exist. None of that 10 to 20 free stories per device per month. Only subscribers get to see the entire content. The non-subscribers get to see only the title and the opening paragraph of an article.
Why doesn't the Blade adopt that model?
The Blade should also eliminate the Facebook comments that appear at the bottom of stories. Currently, a non-subscriber with a Facebook account can add a comment to a Blade story, correct?
Facebook comments are useless. It only adds more bloat to the newspaper's website. It has always been a myth that Facebook's real-name policy leads to more civil discussions.
The Blade should create its own online community for paying customers only. The forum should be private and not viewable by the public. Only subscribers get to read and post in the Blade message board.
I think that the Boston Globe manages a private Facebook group for newspaper subscribers only, and that's where paying Globe users hold discussions. That's one way a newspaper can create a decent online community, built around the newspaper and its coverage area.
Perks should exist only for paying customers. And requiring a subscription fee would be a major barrier to entry for participation in the Blade's private message board. This should lead to more meaningful discussions.
The newspaper industry fucked up long ago when they decided to give away their craft for free. Maybe nothing will ever be devised to save newspapers at the local level. Subscriptions might not be enough. Local newspapers may need to rely on philanthropy and switch to a non-profit status.
Cutting staff and cutting the size of the print newspaper won't help in the long-term. Local newspapers may need to offer more choices to get people to subscribe.
Unbundle. Let customers subscribe to sections or to individual writers.
I would pay for local news, local politics, local business, local editorials, and some other local topics, such as food and the outdoors.
I would pay more to read certain writers, especially if they maintained private blogs or whatever where the writers might publish notes or quick observations that may or may not turn into stories, but the info is available only to subscribers.
But I have no interest in paying for local sports coverage nor any sports from the Blade. I don't care about high school football nor Big 10 football.
This summer, I subscribed to the digital media startup called https://theathletic.com where an annual subscription only costs about $50. Their focus is on writing while the big sports media orgs migrate nearly all to video. I like reading. I like text.
Currently, TheAthletic covers sports in only a handful of areas: Chicago, Toronto, Bay Area, Detroit, and Cleveland. I joined to read mainly about the Browns.
Just because Browns rookie QB DeShone Kizer graduated from Toledo Central Catholic High School, that doesn't mean that I need a local perspective of his play now for the Browns.
But unbundling could have issues too, since more people would probably pay for sports coverage than local political coverage, which means the latter might get eliminated from the reporting.
"Or you could all subscribe if you're local... there is a lot more in the daily paper than on the .com."
More in the print? Like what?
In 2017, why would a newspaper place content in the print edition that would not exist on the website?
It should be the other way around because the web has fewer restrictions than a print newspaper. Far more content should be available on the website than what's possible to place in a newspaper.
The Blade should be the Wikipedia of the Toledo area. The paper began in the 1800s. All of its info could link to its own writing. And this info would only be available to paying customers.
The Blade could create database-backed projects, related to the area, and this so-called data journalism would only be available to paying customers to mine.
I stopped reading print newspapers about 10 years ago. I can't imagine ever reading a print newspaper again, unless I finally try the Slow News Movement concept.
As to the web, if newspaper paying customers received the same web experience as non-paying customers, then forget it.
Subscribers should receive a simple, lightweight, fast-loading, focused web experience without ads, trackers, and other gobbledygook. I would pay well for that product.
I suppose that I would be the only person willing to pay a hefty annual [Blade] subscription fee for content that was displayed simply.A fast, simple delivery mechanism does not improve bad writing. But good writing, important writing can be lost or ignored when the delivery mechanism is a train wreck.
The counter argument would be, "People who paid for print newspapers still received ads in their newspapers."
I guess that means that people who pay for digital subscriptions should still be abused by web ads.
That's the past. I don't think that a print newspaper business model from the 1980s should be applied to today's online world.
In my opinion, this is a reader-hostile web design.
That's a small editorial that contains under 500 words. Text. But it also contains a useless photo at the top of the editorial.
Drop that link into WebPageTest.org. Here are the results:
https://www.webpagetest.org/result/170811_H6_1PQD
At webpagetest.org, I'm mainly interested in the numbers under "Fully Loaded" and the breakdown of what a reader must download.
First View - Fully Loaded:
- Time = 25.062 seconds - It took 25 seconds to download that 500-word editorial completely over a simulated fast internet connection and not a 2G connection. It's simple-shit text that should load instantly.
- Requests = 225 - WTF? The reader's web browser would be forced to make over 200 requests to load a 500-word editorial. And those web requests went off into parts unknown, forcing a reader to download trackers, ads, etc.
- Bytes In = 3,169 KB - Holy hell. A web browser would be forced to download over three megabytes of nastyware in order to read a small editorial.
How does a 500-word editorial become a 3 megabyte download?
It's not my fault. It's not the fault of Craigslist nor Facebook.
When the newspaper industry accepts blame for this kind of abomination, then maybe the industry has a chance to save itself.
It would take three 3.5-inch 1.44 mb diskettes to store the download of everything associated with that Blade editorial.
I've mentioned before that the entire HTML version of WAR AND PEACE By Leo Tolstoy/Tolstoi is 3.9 mb. An approximately 500-word Blade editorial is 3.1 mb.
That's fucked up.
Humorous April 2016 Wired.com article
A compressed copy of the installer for the shareware version of Doom takes up about 2.39MB of space. Today’s average webpage, meanwhile, requires users to download about 2.3MB worth of data.
I ignore the rhetoric about how once a website's assets have been downloaded, then they are cached, so that the browser does not need to download that bilge again. Allegedly. But that's great for that website if 100 percent true. But visit another media website, and the same thing will most likely occur. Megabytes of crap must be downloaded to read a small article.
BTW, one megabyte of that Blade editorial download was due to JavaScript. That's seriously fucked up.
If the Blade wants to provide that kind of dreadful web experience to non-paying customers, then that's fine. I have no problem with it.
If JavaScript is disabled, then that editorial loads completely in the web browser in about one second, instead of taking forever because without JavaScript, many of those 200-plus requests to who-knows-what get blocked.
And that fast-loading web experience should be the default web behavior for paying customers. No ads, no trackers, and no useless JavaScript. Pay for less because the focus for customers should be on the content.
From my March 2016 comment that I linked to above:
I feel bad for the writers, editors, and everyone else at newspaper orgs. Their service is needed at the local level, in my opinion.But this kind of web design indefensible, and I would never support it with money.
https://daringfireball.net/2017/06/medium_dickbars
The SEO folks are the same dopes who came up with the genius strategy of requiring 5-10 megabytes of privacy-intrusive CPU-intensive JavaScript on every page load that slows down websites.
https://daringfireball.net/2015/07/safari_content_blocker_imore
It’s not just the download size, long initial page load time, and the ads that cover valuable screen real estate as fixed elements. The fact that these JavaScript trackers hit the network for a full-minute after the page has completely loaded is downright criminal. Advertising should be respectful of the user’s time, attention, and battery life. The industry has gluttonously gone the other way.
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/05/09/nyt-podcasts
JavaScript has brought the web to the brink of ruin ...
That might be a little dramatic. JavaScript is not the problem. Media orgs relying on an obviously flawed business model that relies on ad systems that rely on abusive JavaScript is the problem.
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/06/22/navistone-form-data
This might sound hyperbolic, but I mean it: I think we’d be better off if JavaScript had never been added to web browsers.
I like JavaScript when it solves problems, makes functions easier, and improves a web experience, especially when logged into a website to perform tasks.
https://daringfireball.net/2017/07/df_display_ads
For readers, these are ads that, again, are visually unobjectionable, and which offer the most privacy you could hope for. Not only is there no tracking involved, there is no JavaScript involved. They’re just images, text, and HTML links.
Ethical web advertising. That won't become mainstream because first, the web publishers would need to design with empathy for the readers.
When web publishers abuse readers with privacy-invasive bloatware, then I see no reason for readers to care about the web publishers.
I think that back in the spring of 2017, the Associated Press released a new web design. With JavaScript disabled, their home page is blank. Good one.
Article pages, however, will display with JavaScript disabled.
This basic text article contains around 750 words and two pointless stock images. It looks benign.
But when submitted to webpagetest.org https://www.webpagetest.org/result/170812_81_YAD/ ...
First View Fully Loaded
- Time = 31.277 seconds to load
- Requests = 252
- Bytes In = 6,680 KB downloaded
To read 750 words, a user is forced to download over six megabytes of cruft. 1.3 mb of the download was due to JavaScript and 4.2 mb was for "other".
Even webpagetest.org gives up.
From JR's : articles
2202 words - 13932 chars
- 12 min read
created on
updated on
- #
source
- versions