Re:Attorneys say Elizabeth Holmes isn’t paying them
by speedplane on Saturday October 05, 2019 @12:36AM
(#21163827)
> they want us to support freedom of the press and anonymous sources but don’t allow us to read anonymously.
It's not that they don't want people to read anonymously, it's that they don't want people to read without paying. If there were an easy and anonymous way to pay for reading publications like the NYTimes, I'd bet the NYT would support it.
Okay, okay ... I know NYTimes is a big corporation, and like any other, they love sucking up as much data they can about their users, so they probably won't do this. However, without an easy and anonymous payment system, NYTimes still has moral cover for their behavior. The bottom line is that people should pay for what they read and providers should not require more than that. There's plenty of technology that can handle this relationship, it's just that most people don't.
It's not that they don't want people to read anonymously, it's that they don't want people to read without paying. If there were an easy and anonymous way to pay for reading publications like the NYTimes, I'd bet the NYT would support it.
Okay, okay ... I know NYTimes is a big corporation, and like any other, they love sucking up as much data they can about their users, so they probably won't do this. However, without an easy and anonymous payment system, NYTimes still has moral cover for their behavior. The bottom line is that people should pay for what they read and providers should not require more than that. There's plenty of technology that can handle this relationship, it's just that most people don't.