There are hundreds of companies trying to solve the problem of monetizing journalism without advertising. What you're saying isn't technically incorrect but it's phrased in this blasé way like there are tons of options that work just fine and they just chose advertising. I have a feeling you're smart enough to know that's not the case and so you're resorting to a just plain bad argument that sounds ok if you don't look at it too hard.
> I have a feeling you're smart enough to know that's not the case and so you're resorting to a just plain bad argument that sounds ok if you don't look at it too hard.
Why are you attributing bad faith to the commenter?
It's a reasonable objection, and many have questioned whether its the moral duty of facebook engineers to quit over privacy issues. Blocking privacy mode is an extremely aggressive and intrusive stance, although some other publications followed suit. NYT is especially heavy on tracking [0] The journalist who write for the Times should take personal responsibility and find a different company or profession. I have a feeling the journalists are smart enough that they know they can find employment elsewhere.
> Why are you attributing bad faith to the commenter?
Because people don't like feeling wrong, even if they aren't particularly wrong, and I've seen many otherwise very intelligent people say and do really stupid things when confronted with information that contradicts their beliefs. Just to be clear this does not make said commenter a bad person, it just makes them a human, with a brain that does occasionally really shitty things when it doesn't want to think.
It's less about attributing bad faith and more just acknowledging that we're all imperfect talking chimps here.
> It's a reasonable objection, and many have questioned whether its the moral duty of facebook engineers to quit over privacy issues.
I would never say another person needs to quit a job over ethical issues, because anyone of decent moral fiber and an objective mind is probably already wrestling with that problem, and having a disinterested third party dispensing advice from On High with zero skin in the game is not going to improve that situation. Alternatively, they could just not care, which is less likely, but also not going be affected by that same third party. Basically what I'm saying is there are numerous possibilities in that interaction but none lead to change, so I don't discuss it. It's moot.
All I'm saying is that the problem of making money in journalism is something that has no clear solution, and acting like the NYT is being hypocritical for using trackers while railing against trackers is a clear example of the Ad Hominem fallacy.
> If this is the case, why is NYT showing absolutely no innovation in monetizing their platform?
Because they don't have ideas? I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take with such a complex problem that so many other companies are having a difficult time solving. Why expend further resources trying to fling more shit at the wall to see what sticks, when your current modal, albeit not ideal, does serve the purpose?
Not everyone has to be, or even should be an innovator. The NYT should be innovating on better and newer techniques of journalism, since that's what they do. It's not like Apple created a new bank for Apple Card to try and make it better, they contracted that part of a product they wanted to offer to a 3rd party that already knew how to do it, and I'd imagine if a revenue model came along that suited them, they'd do the same thing and dump trackers and ad-tech. It's likely they're just waiting for that.
> Insulting and unsubstantiated; how nice.
I mean, it was unsubstantiated, yes, but I think it was also a positive-leaning assumption? I'm not sure why you're insulted by that, but I apologize.
