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.

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.

If you want to support the Blade, the best thing to do is 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 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 would be a major barrier to entry for participating 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 Messina and Markey.

But I have no interest in paying for local sports coverage or 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 which costs only about $50 a year. Their focus is on writing while the big sports media orgs migrate nearly entirely 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, however, 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."

Really? 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 don't think that I would ever read a print newspaper. That's why we ended our subscription many years ago.

The only print newspaper that I read is the Toledo Streets Newspaper that I buy at the farmers market.

I've considered trying a Slow News Movement where I would read a print newspaper and maybe a smattering of digital news but only at a designated time of the day, such as the morning or evening, and that's it. No phone-reading. News would only come from a print newspaper and maybe a laptop/desktop for a brief period. In theory, this would provide more time for other activities, like in the olden days.

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'd 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 saw 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 1980s print newspaper business model should be applied to today's online world.

If a local newspaper fails to see the difference between print and digital, then that's not my fault.

This is known as a reader-hostile web design.

• http://www.toledoblade.com/Editorials/2017/08/11/Algae-threat-needs-to-be-eliminated.html

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 for that 500-word editorial to download and load completely. It's simple-shit text that should load instantly.

• Requests = 225 - WTF??? over 200 web requests were needed for a web reader to load a 500-word editorial. And those web requests went off into parts unknown, forcing a reader download trackers, ads, etc.

• Bytes In = 3,169 KB -- ??????!!!!!!!!! - Holy hell. A web reader is 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? Where's the congressional hearing?

I've mentioned before that the entire HTML version of WAR AND PEACE By Leo Tolstoy/Tolstoi is 3.9 mb. I think that War and Peace contains more than 1,000 words.

And I ignore the rhetoric about how once those assets are 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. But visit another media website, and same thing will most likely occur. Megabytes of crap must be downloaded to read a simple article.

BTW, one megabyte of that simple Blade editorial download was for JavaScript, for which I say so eloquently, "Fuck you."

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.

Disable JavaScript and that editorial loads in the web browser in under 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. The focus for paying 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.