You can always justify behavior that causes someone else cost. Like the NYT with all their spyware?

Both queries are reasonable ones to make. A spies by default without proper consent, B blocks by default without consent.

Is this optimal? Can we do better?

I recommend you don't read NYT articles if you don't want your IP to be logged.

I recommend you put up convincing evidence that this is all that the NYT log about visitors because I don't believe that and it sounds a bit, well, glib to be honest. I don't read the nyt fwiw.

Moreover I recommend you have a slightly closer look if you are really holding up the nyt as a bastion of ethical behavior. But at least they stand up for Assange and journalism not being criminalised while doing stenography for the powerful (amongst some decent real reporting, some now being criminalized, away from the front page), right? I'm sure they'll balance their reporting about wikileaks by quoting someone who doesn't actively hate them any day now.

Anyway it should be noted that saying what you believe as you've done is the right thing and I endorse it even when defending the revenue a company that had $2.31 Billion on the books last year and has been a marker of inter-generational wealth and power for 170+ years to the family that owns it. I agree that what that looks like genuinely doesn't matter with regard to what you think is right in any ethical analysis. That goes unsaid too often imho.

>The NYT needs to make money to pay its Journalists.

Don't threaten me with a good time.

If j*urnos want money, they should choose to start acting in a way that deserves it at some point.

>The NYT needs to make money to pay its Journalists. Don't threaten me with a good time.

If j*urnos want money, they should choose to start acting in a way that deserves it at some point. In this case, if "The Paper of Record" needs to be regularly recorded from outside to be held to account for shoddy jobs and stitch-ups, exactly what service is it actually providing?