What does the NYT use to prevent "some" freeware browsers from reading too many of their articles for free?

"tom" wrote

| No surprise you want to steal from people.
|
| It's not stealing if they already sent you the article, just with a
| bunch of extra **** strewn on top
|
I think of it more like a mutual scam. They
offer you a trinket and hope to pick your pocket
while you're grabbing the trinket. You hope to
grab it with no cost. Neither side is being honest.

But they do put the pages out there. To require
a subscription is to not understand how the Internet
works.

I actually never block ads. And I never see
ads. But if NYT serves up an ad that's actually on
their webpage, not part of a sleazeball, spyware
scam run by Google that's trying to spy on me,
categorize me, and show me an ad all at once, then
I'll see their ad. I don't mind. I didn't mind when
Google started out and showed contextual text-
based ads along the right side. They made billions
doing that. But it was never enough. They felt they
needed to cheat and lie and spy and lock-in. It's
got to the point that it's hardly worth the trouble to
wade through the crap in their search returns on the
rare occasions I use them for search. And even then I
have to dissect the searchreturn links to prevent
sending Google a notification of which link I clicked.
It's all sleaze, all the time. So their customers are
doing the same.

There are some sites, like WashPo and NPR, that want
me to let them spy and will block me about once per week.
So I just go elsewhere on those days. I'm not going to sign
up with any site to let them track me online. But if they want
to actually put ads that are actually on the webpage I
asked them for, I won't block those.

On 2020-06-25 5:19 p.m., Mayayana wrote:
"tom" wrote

| No surprise you want to steal from people.
|
| It's not stealing if they already sent you the article, just with a
| bunch of extra **** strewn on top
|
I think of it more like a mutual scam. They
offer you a trinket and hope to pick your pocket
while you're grabbing the trinket. You hope to
grab it with no cost. Neither side is being honest.

The New York times is being completely honest.


But they do put the pages out there. To require
a subscription is to not understand how the Internet
works.

But to evade their conditions for viewing their content is to be a thief.

Sorry... ...it just is.


I actually never block ads. And I never see
ads. But if NYT serves up an ad that's actually on
their webpage, not part of a sleazeball, spyware
scam run by Google that's trying to spy on me,
categorize me, and show me an ad all at once, then
I'll see their ad. I don't mind. I didn't mind when
Google started out and showed contextual text-
based ads along the right side. They made billions
doing that. But it was never enough. They felt they
needed to cheat and lie and spy and lock-in. It's
got to the point that it's hardly worth the trouble to
wade through the crap in their search returns on the
rare occasions I use them for search. And even then I
have to dissect the searchreturn links to prevent
sending Google a notification of which link I clicked.
It's all sleaze, all the time. So their customers are
doing the same.

There are some sites, like WashPo and NPR, that want
me to let them spy and will block me about once per week.
So I just go elsewhere on those days. I'm not going to sign
up with any site to let them track me online. But if they want
to actually put ads that are actually on the webpage I
asked them for, I won't block those.

On 2020-06-25 4:06 p.m., 123456789 wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:

They [NYT] are offering to show you a small number of articles for
free each period (month, IIRC); after which you are expected to
subscribe if you want more. You want to subvert the process and get
content for free that you are not entitled to received. That's theft.

Agreed.

I also "subvert the process" on many other news websites by blocking
their revenue producing ads (shame). My Android SmartNews news
aggregator app has a "smart" feature that eliminates the ads (shame). My
Firefox browser has a reader mode that eliminates the ads (shame). And
my Firefox JavaScript off extension destroys my local newspaper's
article limit count (shame). When I'm reading news on my Android tablet
and an article pops up with a "you've reached your limit" box, I just
plug in a mouse and continue reading the article by mouse wheeling it on
by in the background (shame). I admit it. I'm a serial online news content
theftist (no shame). Oh, and I speed on the freeway too... 8-O


At least you're honest.

On 2020-06-25 8:08 p.m., Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-06-25 4:06 p.m., 123456789 wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:

They [NYT] are offering to show you a small number of articles for
free each period (month, IIRC); after which you are expected to
subscribe if you want more. You want to subvert the process and get
content for free that you are not entitled to received. That's theft.

Agreed.

I also "subvert the process" on many other news websites by blocking
their revenue producing ads (shame). My Android SmartNews news
aggregator app has a "smart" feature that eliminates the ads (shame). My
Firefox browser has a reader mode that eliminates the ads (shame). And
my Firefox JavaScript off extension destroys my local newspaper's
article limit count (shame). When I'm reading news on my Android tablet
and an article pops up with a "you've reached your limit" box, I just
plug in a mouse and continue reading the article by mouse wheeling it on
by in the background (shame). I admit it. I'm a serial online news
content
theftist (no shame). Oh, and I speed on the freeway too... 8-O


At least you're honest.

An honest thief!!! somehow that doesn't quite jibe.

Rene

Alan Baker wrote:
123456789 wrote:

I also "subvert the process" on many other news websites by
blocking their revenue producing ads (shame). My Android SmartNews
news aggregator app has a "smart" feature that eliminates the ads
(shame). My Firefox browser has a reader mode that eliminates the
ads (shame). And my Firefox JavaScript off extension destroys my
local newspaper's article limit count (shame). When I'm reading
news on my Android tablet and an article pops up with a "you've
reached your limit" box, I just plug in a mouse and continue
reading the article by mouse wheeling it on by in the background
(shame). I admit it. I'm a serial online news content theftist (no
shame). Oh, and I speed on the freeway too... 8-O

At least you're honest.

Yea, well I didn't think you'd buy that that nasty NYT was actually the
thief here. A criminal trespasser on MY computer because in its
intrusion it committed trespass and theft of drive space by installing
those unwanted counter cookies without even asking me. Would you??

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 20:19:37 -0400, Mayayana wrote:

I didn't mind when
Google started out and showed contextual text-
based ads along the right side. They made billions
doing that. But it was never enough.

As Mayayana stated, there are the whales, and there are the casual users,
where they make, on average 16 times more on advertising to the casual user
than they do on the whales who pony up for subscriptions.

In the case of the whales, some _need_ fast access to the designated web
sites, while others are simply too stupid to understand even something as
simple how to clear cookies.

According to the articles quoted below, they expect to make only 1/16th of
their revenue on the whales, where they trade subscription revenue for ad
revenue, with the very real danger that the casual user will _leave_ the
site forever, since news is more than 80% interchangeable.

Knowing that, as stated in this article, they allow bypass on purpose.
o They're not stupid like Alan Baker is; they know what they are doing.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.comp.freeware/DjolxgX2-4w/DkAg-ADRBgAJ

Fundamentally, even though Alan Baker feels everything in the world he
doesn't understand is an accident, they know exactly what they are doing
when they create one of the five types of interfaces as described below:
1. The leaky paywall with side doors
2. Hard paywalls
3. The two-website, metered freemium model
4. The very leaky paywall
5. The no-paywall approach

Here are some of the articles describing how & why they do what they do.

o In paywall age, free content remains king for newspaper sites
https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/newspaper-paywalls.php
"The most common paywall strategy among the daily newspaper publishers
we studied was metered access for non-subscribers with one or two
unlimited side door exceptions."

Here's another article outlining the different types of paywalls:
o Paywalls: Are they effective?
https://iotechnologies.com/blog/monetization-paywalls
1. A hard paywall Example: The Times
2. A metered paywall Example: The New York Times
3. A freemium paywall Example: The Guardian

The articles below discuss some of the business issues I've highlighted.

o *Paywalls are a tourniquet for online news*
https://www.inverse.com/article/49965-the-internet-trap-matthew-hindman
"Most newspaper site-users visit just a few times a month.

More than 90 percent of site visitors never hit the paywall in the first
place. Metered paywalls thus ask for subscription revenue only from
heavier users.

Paywalls allow newspapers to perform price discrimination - to figure
out which users are most willing to pay, and then ask that group alone
to pony up."

o *Three reasons why journalism paywalls still don't work*
https://qz.com/1173033/the-psychology-behind-why-journalism-paywalls-still-dont-work/
"Take a moment to consider the emotions you feel every time you hit one
of these barriers. You start to engage with an interesting story,
then you're slapped with a pop-up. You roll your eyes.
A strange mix of indignity and disgust washes over you.
And most of the time, you click away.

Paywalls may eke out a profit, but they also accelerate a newspaper's
nightmare scenario - that readers will leave the site, try the free
stuff, and decide it's pretty much the same."

o *Are Paywalls Saving Newspapers?*
https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/are-paywalls-saving-newspapers
"For companies with high circulations and large amounts of exclusive
content, paywalls can increase overall sales, often by increasing demand
for print subscriptions."

"Newspapers with less exclusive content, however, have generally
experienced losses when they started charging readers to access
digital editions"

o *Before You Put Up a Paywall, Read This Study*
https://www.ama.org/2019/03/07/before-you-put-up-a-paywall-read-this-study/
"For every online advertising dollar gained, newspapers lose up to $16
in offline advertising dollars."

"Heavy users bring in more subscription revenue while casual readers
(typically a majority of traffic) bring in more advertising revenue"
--
After studying the problem, they came up with "leaky" paywalls & "side
doors" in many cases (for the casual reader like we generally are).

On 2020-06-25, Alan Baker wrote:


To Alan Baker, the "buy one get one free" model is "stealing" one jug of milk!
o He's literally _that_ stupid.

Ummmmmm.... ....no.

The NYT is not offering a "buy one get one free" model.

They are offering to show you a small number of articles for free each
period (month, IIRC); after which you are expected to subscribe if you
want more.

You want to subvert the process and get content for free that you are
not entitled to received.

That's theft.

No it's not, I have not deprived them of the article.
probaly not even fraud, as there's no material loss.
Furthermore nowhere am I required to limit the number
of free articles I read.

--
Jasen.

Jasen Betts wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:

They are offering to show you a small number of articles for free each
period (month, IIRC); after which you are expected to subscribe if you
want more.

You want to subvert the process and get content for free that you are
not entitled to received.

That's theft.

No it's not, I have not deprived them of the article.
probaly not even fraud, as there's no material loss.

Go to the pirate sites (or Usenet binary groups) and download all the
free commercial ebooks and music you want. There's no material loss to
the authors/musicians so no theft. Right?

Furthermore nowhere am I required to limit the number
of free articles I read.

Not if you're a good cookie killer...

On 26/06/20 02:19, Mayayana wrote:
"tom" wrote

| No surprise you want to steal from people.
|
| It's not stealing if they already sent you the article, just with a
| bunch of extra **** strewn on top
|
I think of it more like a mutual scam. They
offer you a trinket and hope to pick your pocket
while you're grabbing the trinket. You hope to
grab it with no cost. Neither side is being honest.

But they do put the pages out there. To require
a subscription is to not understand how the Internet
works.

I actually never block ads. And I never see
ads. But if NYT serves up an ad that's actually on
their webpage, not part of a sleazeball, spyware
scam run by Google that's trying to spy on me,
categorize me, and show me an ad all at once, then
I'll see their ad. I don't mind. I didn't mind when
Google started out and showed contextual text-
based ads along the right side. They made billions
doing that. But it was never enough. They felt they
needed to cheat and lie and spy and lock-in. It's
got to the point that it's hardly worth the trouble to
wade through the crap in their search returns on the
rare occasions I use them for search. And even then I
have to dissect the searchreturn links to prevent
sending Google a notification of which link I clicked.

what did you mean with "I dissect the link" ?
You select it as text a piece at a time and then paste in
another tab url's bar ?
I do not use gugol, bing, amazon too ... but in case, it
would be a nice advice !

Ah, another subquestion : I have experienced, when I search
ebay for some stuff, that after a certain number of searches
on a certain topic, some "AI" in background starts to RAISE
THE PRICE showed for the very same item (from a certain same
vendor !) : just to rape you since you are showing sincere
intrest in the stuff.
Do you think your "dissection" (but explain better the point
....) would prevent the "AI" from noticing the sincere
interest in the purchase and hence to raise the price ?
Normally I use two browser : one in anonym mode (ig Midori
anonymized) to make effective searches, then, after the
product is selected, I use the official SeaWeasel (FF) to
make the purchase.


It's all sleaze, all the time. So their customers are
doing the same.


for sake of discussion : here in italy another pattern of
fundraising is used by some magazines (online and not) :
they offer for free part of the article, and then you have
to subscribe (paying) for unlock the rest. I abandon the
page without tricks, at most I search more elsewhere.
There is not enough "biodiversity" left in the meanstream
media for a particular source to be worth with. We have come
to the absurd situation where the few valuable and really
independent sources offer all for free :\


There are some sites, like WashPo and NPR, that want
me to let them spy and will block me about once per week.
So I just go elsewhere on those days. I'm not going to sign
up with any site to let them track me online. But if they want
to actually put ads that are actually on the webpage I
asked them for, I won't block those.




--
1) Resistere, resistere, resistere.
2) Se tutti pagano le tasse, le tasse le pagano tutti
Soviet_Mario - (aka Gatto_Vizzato)

In article , Soviet_Mario
wrote:


Ah, another subquestion : I have experienced, when I search
ebay for some stuff, that after a certain number of searches
on a certain topic, some "AI" in background starts to RAISE
THE PRICE showed for the very same item (from a certain same
vendor !) : just to rape you since you are showing sincere
intrest in the stuff.

there is no ai in the background on ebay that alters prices.

ebay is an auction site. prices go up because other people bid on the
item.

some items have a buy-it-now price, which is up to the seller to
decide, not ebay, and might be *lowered* after a while because they
priced it too high and it didn't sell.

On 2020-06-26, 123456789 wrote:
Jasen Betts wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:

They are offering to show you a small number of articles for free each
period (month, IIRC); after which you are expected to subscribe if you
want more.

You want to subvert the process and get content for free that you are
not entitled to received.

That's theft.

No it's not, I have not deprived them of the article.
probaly not even fraud, as there's no material loss.

Go to the pirate sites (or Usenet binary groups) and download all the
free commercial ebooks and music you want.

I will take not such action merely on the advice of an internet bozo
like you.

There's no material loss to the authors/musicians so no theft. Right?

Correctimundo piracy is not theft. Simpletons and liars seems to like
to conflate Copyright infringement and Theft. Perhaps you're fallen
victim to the minitrations of one of them.

Furthermore nowhere am I required to limit the number
of free articles I read.

Not if you're a good cookie killer...

Not by any terms and condions I could find on the NYT website.


--
Jasen.

"Jasen Betts" wrote

| Furthermore nowhere am I required to limit the number
| of free articles I read.
|
| Not if you're a good cookie killer...
|
| Not by any terms and condions I could find on the NYT website.
|

Why even read their terms? They put their pages
online. your browser asked for the page. The server
gave it the page. You're under no obligation to read or
follow any mickey mouse, unilateral terms of service.

Downloading copyrighted material that was posted
illegally is an entirely different matter. That's a crime.
But reading the NYT is exactly how the Internet was
designed to work. If they don't want you to see it
then it's up to them to not make it public.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


But reading the NYT is exactly how the Internet was
designed to work. If they don't want you to see it
then it's up to them to not make it public.

which is exactly what they did by using a paywall.

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:14:34 -0400, nospam wrote:

But reading the NYT is exactly how the Internet was
designed to work. If they don't want you to see it
then it's up to them to not make it public.

which is exactly what they did by using a paywall.

It's petrifyingly shocking how ignorant nospam just proved to be.

This one post proves nospam is a moron who ignores basic facts.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/c9d-U34syZo/Uo1FvO8cCgAJ

The NYT (and others) _designed_ their system to have "leaks".
o They did it on purpose.

Absolute morons like nospam are either too stupid to comprehend
o Or, more than likely, he simply bull****s what he knows to be false

It's _trivial_ to prove both nospam dead wrong given these are the
documented strategies the online newspaper outlets decide to employ:
1. The leaky paywall with side doors
2. Hard paywalls
3. The two-website, metered freemium model
4. The very leaky paywall
5. The no-paywall approach

Bear in mind it is well documented they are well aware that the casual
reader is 90% of their business, and yet that casual reader, if turned
away, will get the same news elsewhere (and might never come back).

It's also well documented they get 16 times the revenue from those casual
users (via ad revenue) than they get from the "whales" who subscribe, so
that's why they design in "leaky" systems.
--
In the case of the Guardian (I believe that's who it was, but I can check
if someone wants to be argumentative), they even change the algorithmic
leaks from time to time to see how the leaks themselves can influence their
readership concentrations between the whales and casual users.

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 12:08:02 +0200, Soviet_Mario wrote:

when I search
ebay for some stuff, that after a certain number of searches
on a certain topic, some "AI" in background starts to RAISE
THE PRICE showed for the very same item

I don't use the Internet for buying and so I can't advise on Ebay but I use
Orbitz and other sites where it almost feels the same way when I'm
searching for rount-trip family tickets between the USA & Europe.

It "almost" seems as if they know I'm searching so they raise the price.
o Do they actually do that? Hell if I know.

Certainly, technically, they "can" do that based on, oh, probably cookies,
or maybe even your IP address (probably not browser fingerprinting, IMHO).

So, what you "can" do if you like is:
a. Clear your cookies and start over, and/or
b. Use VPN or proxy

IMHO, the _easiest_ way to use VPN (which is really a proxy) is:
A. Epic Privacy Browser (this is reasonably fast & allows IP changes)
B. Opera VPN Browser (this is a bit slower & is harder to choose the IP)

And, perhaps, if you're _really_ hard core, an onion browser such as:
C. Tor Browser Bundle (very slow by way of comparison)
--
Better to protect against what they "can" do, rather than to protect only
against what you "think" they'll do (as they think harder than you do).