Re:Show me a 10ft paywall, I’ll show you a 12ft ladder
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 on Saturday December 25, 2021 @02:00AM
(#29681135)
Or just use a client that does not have a JavaScript engine.
From the perspective of this text-only browser user, there is no "paywall" there are just complaints from people who are using browsers that run JavaScript.
From where I sit, it looks like JavaScript is the problem, not "paywalls". Specifically, browsers that run it automatically and web developers that use it irresponsibly. It seems the JS interpreter is not in the browser for the user to write and run her own scripts to improve her UX but for website operators to run their own scripts, without any prior selection or approval from users, in order to benefit their own interests.
Allow me to explain. A true access control would require an approved source IP, a password or something similar. Thus, this so-called "paywall" is not an access control to exclude non-subscribers. It is more like some sort of deliberate annoyance, forced hassle as a weasel-like form of "marketing". It is implemented using JavaScript. The question to ask is whether NYT could and would carry out the same sort of intentional annoyance without the use of JavaScript. They probably could, yet the fact is they don't. And so we are left to wonder, perhaps they wouldn't, even if they could. JavaScript clearly enables, and seems to me may actually inspire, shenanigans like this "paywall". (Why annoy non-subscribers. "Because we can. It's easy.") Take JavaScript away from web developers and what would happen. Would they reimplement this "paywall" in another way, without using JavaScript. How easy would that be, compared to using JavaScript.
What we have now is NYT 1. collecting data on non-subscribers, 2. showing them ads (thus potentially producing revenue from non-subscribers) and 3. annoying non-subscribers (after collecting data on them and showing ads) to try to get them to subscribe. #3 is a new low.
Turn off JavaScript and this does not work. Or use a client that does not support JavaScript and one never even knows this is happening to other users. I only know about a NYT "paywall" because I read about it. I have never experienced myself. I can read the entire online edition fast, in one go. Apparently the only reason is because I am not using a browser released by an entity that collects data on users, a browser that runs other peoples' code, more or less indiscriminantly, by default. This leads me to have a different perspective than the users of popular browsers. The popular browsers and JavaScript seem like they are the problem, or at least a fundamental part.
From the perspective of this text-only browser user, there is no "paywall" there are just complaints from people who are using browsers that run JavaScript.
From where I sit, it looks like JavaScript is the problem, not "paywalls". Specifically, browsers that run it automatically and web developers that use it irresponsibly. It seems the JS interpreter is not in the browser for the user to write and run her own scripts to improve her UX but for website operators to run their own scripts, without any prior selection or approval from users, in order to benefit their own interests.
Allow me to explain. A true access control would require an approved source IP, a password or something similar. Thus, this so-called "paywall" is not an access control to exclude non-subscribers. It is more like some sort of deliberate annoyance, forced hassle as a weasel-like form of "marketing". It is implemented using JavaScript. The question to ask is whether NYT could and would carry out the same sort of intentional annoyance without the use of JavaScript. They probably could, yet the fact is they don't. And so we are left to wonder, perhaps they wouldn't, even if they could. JavaScript clearly enables, and seems to me may actually inspire, shenanigans like this "paywall". (Why annoy non-subscribers. "Because we can. It's easy.") Take JavaScript away from web developers and what would happen. Would they reimplement this "paywall" in another way, without using JavaScript. How easy would that be, compared to using JavaScript.
What we have now is NYT 1. collecting data on non-subscribers, 2. showing them ads (thus potentially producing revenue from non-subscribers) and 3. annoying non-subscribers (after collecting data on them and showing ads) to try to get them to subscribe. #3 is a new low.
Turn off JavaScript and this does not work. Or use a client that does not support JavaScript and one never even knows this is happening to other users. I only know about a NYT "paywall" because I read about it. I have never experienced myself. I can read the entire online edition fast, in one go. Apparently the only reason is because I am not using a browser released by an entity that collects data on users, a browser that runs other peoples' code, more or less indiscriminantly, by default. This leads me to have a different perspective than the users of popular browsers. The popular browsers and JavaScript seem like they are the problem, or at least a fundamental part.