Possible yes, users would need to pay with money.

Successful much less. Most users happily open bloat sites and pay with their privacy and being manipulated.

I would argue it's "begrudgingly" rather than "happily".

> Most users happily open bloat sites and pay with their privacy and being manipulated.

You can use bloat sites and pay with your privacy and be manipulated for free or you can pay for the experience, but you'll be using bloat sites and pay with your privacy and be manipulated no matter what.

> That's how news websites are supposed to look like.

No, news websites don't have to be this sterile.

I think NYT is a prime example of how to merge classic text-based articles with multimedia content in a way that's beneficial to the consumer.

Use either Dillo or Netsurf with NYT and then we well talk.

JS and ad bloat made HTML5 video and audio tags rendered null with no actual usage IRL.

Just like how I don't try to run the latest edition of Flight Simulator on my 4-GB, GPU-less device; I also don't try to visit websites built with latest web features using browsers that are clearly not trying to support those features.

NYT doesn't have to hinder its innovative efforts to create informative content just because of a couple of folks who refuse to admit that tech evolves over time.

I understand that ads can be annoying, and for that I use ad blockers where necessary; but for everything else, I appreciate the advancements in the web tech capabilities that enable the creation of amazing stuff.

> I also don't try to visit websites built with latest web features using browsers that are clearly not trying to support those features.

But good websites will let you, that's the point.

I find the nyt's website far more informative and way easier to use and navigate than this.

So why is neuter a good website while nyt's isn't?

Well, tbf, I'm speculating based on the evidence provided. But, if NYT provides a poor—or non-existent—experience to anyone, for example, without JavaScript enabled, then it fits my definition of "bad".

There is still plenty of design space between no JS and Carter licking his lips on the front page.

Most user will probably want images, slightly more styling and recommendations on what to read next... other than that it's a perfectly usable website for the everyday user, something that can't be said about most news sites today, sadly.

I mean who even reads ad-spam websites in the first place? They used to host little bits of knowledge you'd search for... now I can reach that better via ChatGPT (eg. How to do mission X in video game Y)

I can only imagine... I read some well crafted news, no ads, no malicious tracking, no ad-blocker-blocker popup, no newsletter popup - and at end of the article: "This experience was great because we're supported by XYZ company, they have no control of our editorial process" (with company logo). Tasteful, still supported by ads, probably completely unsustainable.

I agree. I'm about to start paying for news again. Had only 2 years worth of subscriptions for news publications in print in about 20 years of adulthood. That's kinda crazy.

And if I subtract university and active library times, I really wonder how I didn't turn towards the conspiratorial kind of thought patterns instead of viewing it all in the light of "cooperation in a complex world full of prenatally brain damaged magic money people".