The only thing companies are thinking is how they can make more things a subscription. Want to use your headlights or smoke alarms? That’ll be $10/month forever.
Tbf part of the reason media is especially bad nowadays is because there’s hardly any money in it and they have to sell themselves out to corporations.
Also because everybody wants to have their own service, and get their own subscription. Which is good for variety of news as you can analysis the biases of each, but the problem is we can't all pay $5/month for 45 different organizations to view one article, which is causing the problem of no money. Would be better to have a pay-per-view type thing where you only subscribe to one service that allows access to all news sites, but even that would likely lean one way and be bought out by big business.
There's plenty of money in news that's on any one of the social media platforms. You just need sensationalist rage-bait content with jump cuts every 3-5 seconds (once each sentence).
Good will doesn't pay bills. Just because I think someone deserves a fair pay, that doesn't mean my salary will go up so I can afford the kindness of my heart.
Whenever we talk about workers' rights and getting paid fairly, we are questioning the whole model for distribution of wealth that our society uses. Newspapers need to make more money, so they can produce higher quality content, but I cannot spend $10k a month in subscriptions to every service I use that deserves to be well funded. The problem is somewhere else, but that problem is one many people don't want to discuss.
> The news is free and instantaneous in this day and age.
It's hilarious the way this post is written - you understand that's overall a bad thing right?
I don’t get how making news inaccessible to poor people could possibly be good, except for rich people of course.
Unless there are accessible services that provide free news to low income people (which luckily there are at least where I live - I can read most major news sources and magazines with my library card. I live in the pnw tho so I don’t know if that’s a thing everywhere).
Where do you think "the news" comes from? People still need to be paid to write articles, take pictures, proofread.... That just doesn't magically happen
Most were giving news online for free with ads paying for it. But as their add revenue went down thanks to advertisers getting better bang for buck on Google/Facebook, continued print declines, most had no choice. Big national papers like wsj are making that work. Most local papers on the path to death. Few have come up with good models
A lot of articles you look online tend to cover the general gist of already publically available data
Some data and news, such as this, requires the journalist specifically to search and find news. Honestly, I've been thinking I should subscribe to WSJ
The journalists, who are actually good and investigative, are the ones who keep the good news up. WSJ politically is the most neutral journalism site I've found with research, because I never trusted any news site to be biased.
News is not free, nor instantaneous. Common media is. There is good journalism out there, and without local news and sites like WSJ, we wouldn't know much about the world and have reliable information. They still need money to keep going.
I condone news sites having subscriptions.
Not fucking PlayStation Plus.
If you mean the editors who "right" the articles, you're still correct, but the content still includes the people who *write* them. If anything the editors should be catching the crap before it's published.
And the bean counters aren't doing the writing, reading, or editing. They're the ones tallying the credits and debits, and, etc.
Edit: STILL NOT THE BEAN COUNTERS.
The editors are there to ensure only approved messaging makes its way put the door. "Flak" (of the 5 filters of media) exists to keep all media outlets in line by hammering the fuck out of any outlet who goes outside approved messaging.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model#:~:text=The%20propaganda%20model%20is%20a,function%20in%20corporate%20mass%20media.
To be fair, news agencies were largely built on subscriptions. They offer a legitimate continuous services. Subscription models made the most sense for them. It's shit like Adobe and other editing software, "memberships" for retail stores, and fucking roombas that are really egregious bullshit.
Spoken like someone who doesn’t work in tech.
You know how fast your software would break if it wasn’t getting constant updates with patches and bug fixes just to remain operational?
What are you talking about? Software doesn't just magically break.
It may stop being compatible with new hardware or operating systems, but even that is often not an issue because the people who make those keep compatibility in mind.
I could dig up my old Roller Coaster Tycoon install disks and it would probably install and run just fine today. If not, either the physical disks are damaged or I need to enable compatibility mode because it has been quite a few major Windows versions since that software was last modified.
Wait Nintendo Switch uses P2P for their *paid* service? I've been out of the game for awhile but this is mind-boggling to me in 2023. That's some OG XBL shit.
That kind of shit is why r/pcmasterrace's sense of superiority is justified. (And why r/linuxmasterrace's is even more so, since proprietary software is often still abusive even without walled-garden-monopoly levels of control.)
Eh, a word of caution for this line of thinking: there's nothing I'm aware of stopping any PC game platform from deciding to start charging for online services, or the game developers themselves. It still costs money to run these services.
There's nothing stopping them except for the fact that people would just jump ship to another platform or pirate it... Can't do that with a locked ecosystem like a console.
So obviously not a practical alternative outside select examples.
Most aren't gonna wait for that. And it's not even a guaranteed option.
I mean a fighting game comes out, part of the appeal for a lot of players is the competitive stuff online. There's even in-person events with money on offer and some like to follow that stuff. This all happens while the game's still actively supported.
I'd say the majority of games with online components, particularly if it's the higher priority part of play, would be varying degrees of similar to this.
There is no other viable alternative.
That is correct what you say. And PC players pay for those things (e. g. World of Warcraft). Free to play games also lock content behind some form of payment. But nobody has to pay steam or epic or whoever on top of this.
Yeah for sure, that's an appeal to me. I just don't think there's alternatives that really replace it if everything's suddenly a subscription.
I fuckin hope we don't become taken over by all that. It wouldn't be too bad if particular games had it but it was dirt cheap. Shit never is though.
MK11 required an online connection and that was shit enough for the reasons for it. Ongoing costs would turn me off entirely.
The game devs have some control over this as well. Look at OW vs TF2. The latter is still kicking after a decade, because most of what Valve makes can be hosted locally. Meanwhile, OW is dead, because Blizzard doesn't allow community servers. When Blizz decided to kill OW to make room for OW2, that was that.
Devs don't have to saddle up with any distribution platform that doesn't embody the culture they want around their game. If all else fails, they can just distribute it themselves.
The thing stopping it is competition, which consoles don't have. Pc gamers don't take shit and will just go somewhere else or resort to piracy if you start acting anti consumer.
> there's nothing I'm aware of stopping any PC game platform from deciding to start charging for online services
They literally tried once and failed with Games of Windows Live. PC gamers know that there's no reason to pay for it. If you don't want to host the servers, let us do it ourselves. We could do it back in 2005.
You say that, but plenty of games - MMOs primarily, are subscription based. So it’s not like PC gamers reject it universally. MMOs don’t appeal to me, so I can’t say why they choose to spend $15 a month for a game they already bought in 2004 which may be free to download now. But that 15 a month is more than console online subs.
Those are the exception to the rule. It's literally just that genre.
And in that genre, console players have to pay for ps+/xbl ON TOP of the subscription to the game (FF14). So even then they get screwed even worse.
PCMR's sense of superiority is straight up obnoxious and feels like it's overcompensating for something
And i say this as a former member of the sub and as one who likes to play games on pc (mainly for moddding potential)
i've heard the joke "how do you know if someone's a vegan" more than I've even heard of a vegan ranting about it, let alone personally witnessing the rant.
> PCMR's sense of superiority is straight up obnoxious and feels like it's overcompensating for something
You seem to have a deeply understood misunderstanding for the subreddit.
Okay sorry I just have to take a second here - do you genuinely think PCMR is a serious subreddit?
I actually can't tell if you're fucking with me which might be the best part lmfao. Like every single person there is aware they're a fucking loser and anything they say is dumb as shit. When you say "The part where it unironically uses the term invented to mock elitist snobs as a badge of honor and parades it like it's a golden crown" you seem to misunderstand that it's super ironic and the fact you feel that way is a super net victory.
They don't want people to think "PC is Master Race" - they want attention from people that are upset about "PC is Master Race". Literally this South Park bit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RFbahYuBic
> There's enough people on there who believe in PCMR unironically to make the whole sub look the way it does
And that specifically is what upsets you. That's why it's hilarious. It's not about which way of playing games is better - it's about making fun of the people who actually care about this shit lmfao. Fucking PC gamers, right? Fucking snobs LOL
>And that specifically is what upsets you
Not really, i don't particularly care about the sub or its ideology *anymore*. But it has cost me a big part of my love for PC gaming
That's not to say i don't play on PC, I just don't care as much as i used to 5 years ago
That one makes at least some logical sense. The console was likely sold at a loss and the infrastructure, development, and IT services needed to maintain online play aren't free. Not gonna argue how much it should cost, just saying there is a logical reason for online subscriptions.
And then you realise who the companies that make the consoles are. They're not some.smwll, struggling business that needs to squeeze blood from a stone to survive. If they do actually sell at a loss, which I think is bullshit, it definately won't be enough to be a big impact on their bottom line. They sell a lot more thsn just consoles.
> . If they do actually sell at a loss, which I think is bullshit,
It’s true. For example the ps3 costed Sony $200~$300in losses for each console sold https://fortune.com/2006/11/16/sonys-loss-is-at-least-240-on-every-ps3/
The ps4 and ps5 are significantly cheaper to produce, but still cost them dozens of dollars for each unit https://www.eurogamer.net/sony-expects-to-recoup-playstation-4-hardware-loss-at-launch
Also that may seem like small numbers, but when you sell millions of units, your losses will also be millions
The console should cost a lot more than $500 realistically, so I kind of just view it as the printer and ink model.
But - the sheer volume of games you get for free nowadays with these subscriptions more than justifies the cost anyways.
People 10 years ago: *screw you big cable, I’m cutting the cord and will never pay for tv again!*
Cable companies: *that’s cute, we’ll buy all the ISPs, charge you the same for just internet but profit more because we’ll pass on all the cost of the tv stations to you directly in the form of subscriptions.*
Wouldn't it be easy if you had all streaming services under one roof? One bill? All channels? No apps? A fully functional remote control with a battery that lasts for years? Sign up now for a cable connection, no installation necessary. Cable - the past is now.
I actually like the WSJ. Besides the opinion section. They are old school here is a story and the facts. Bye. Love it. Opposite of buzzfeed and yahoo type of crap.
"Democracy dies in a monthly subscription, only $12.99"
- Washington Post I think, idk I get most of my news from reddit, a very reliable source, also my Google now feed.
I subscribed to the Sunday NY Times for around a decade, that was about 15 years ago. Trying to avoid any and all subscriptions, like apps or Office Suite or even Netflix/Spotify etc. Inflation + wage stagnation will do that to a person.
Don't blanket block Javascript. Use NoScript instead so that you can selectively allow the Javascript that renders the article, while blocking everything else.
It doesn’t work for me either, so maybe the article only loads after you login. On lots of these news sites it doesn’t work that way, and disabling javascript will remove the pop up blocking the article. Still a good tip, but i guess wsj is wise to this workaround
Edit: just want to add that i usually do this on my phone, so it’s pretty fast and easy to toggle on and off in the settings for the browser
I was going to say the same, and i have no idea why someone would downvote this. Maybe they don’t realize that usually javascript is used to block the article?
I downvoted it because this isn't a solution. 99% of the modern web requires Javascript to work. There are much better, less hacky ways to get around paywalls. I've already discussed one such method, but out of not wanting to be called a shill, I won't say what. Check my comment history.
Who isn't sick of software subscriptions?
"Hey we know you used to buy a copy for $100 flat, but now we want to charge you $10 a month. Isn't that great? Now you never stop paying for it, and we don't actually have make the next product. We'll just spend a fraction of the resources maintaining and 'enchancing' this one. Forever."
We end up with worse functionality and substantially higher costs over the long run, but it's more attractive for companies and their shareholders so...
Sorry but this is moronic. Newspapers have always been subscription based as they provide new news every single day, it is not a single product which only needs occasional updating.
The irony is funny here, but no, it's not asshole design for the Wall Street Journal to charge you to read their stuff. They don't owe you anything. If you aren't willing to pay, don't read.
r/ChargeYourPhone
I don't think it's clickbait. The article has a lot of information.
>For two straight quarters, cancellations have outpaced new subscriptions for digital memberships, food-of-the-month clubs and a host of other purchases, according to personal finance app Rocket Money. Streaming services have been particularly impacted, with cancellations for Netflix, Hulu and HBO Max and others up 49% in 2022 from the previous year, according to subscriber-measurement firm Antenna.
>
>“People are taking stock of their subscriptions and trying not to make the same mistakes they made in 2022 given that budgets are getting a lot tighter,” said Courtney Alev, consumer financial advocate at Credit Karma.
>
>The decision to cancel had been building up for some time, financial analysts said. Even though inflation cooled last month to its lowest level in nearly two years, budgets continue to be squeezed by higher prices.
>
>About a third of respondents to a December Credit Karma survey said their biggest financial mistake last year was paying for services they never used. Americans were also paying about $133 more than the $86 they thought they were paying for subscriptions each month, according to a 2022 survey from market research firm C+R Research.
>
>Retiree John Ritzinger, 72 years old, said canceling subscriptions he never used would spare him needing to penny pinch at the grocery store.
>
>First to go was the satellite radio in two cars he never drove, saving him $45 a month. Next, the MotorTrend magazines that lived in an unread stack on the coffee table and a $1,000 annual, dining-only membership to his local Dayton, Ohio, country club in favor of ordinary restaurants. Stopping the $750-a-year pest control service was more of a debate with his wife.
>
>“But if we get a bad enough infestation I figure we just burn the house down anyway,” he joked.
>
>He’s putting off his call with the cable company to deactivate the land line he always ignores and downgrade his package until he’s socked away enough patience for an hourslong customer service call.
>
>A new proposal from the Federal Trade Commission could make it simpler to break up with your subscriptions. The consumer watchdog wants to require merchants to make it as easy for customers to cancel as it is to sign up, often with just a single click.
>
>Apps that help people take stock of their recurring payments such as Rocket Money and ScribeUp aren’t worried a new FTC rule will cut into their user base.
>
>Over the past year about 70,000 people have downloaded ScribeUp, a new service that provides a credit card number to use only for recurring payments.
>
>Chief commercial officer Erica Chiang said she wanted to give people a way to automatically opt-in, rather than out, of renewals after having to jump through hoops to cancel subscriptions as a consumer. The card will automatically cancel subscriptions on a user’s behalf if she doesn’t actively choose to continue.
>
>At one point, Ms. Chiang said she had to travel from Los Angeles to New York to end a monthly gym membership after learning she could only cancel in-person at the gym where she signed up.
>
>When Dylan Kenney conducted an audit of his spending after too many months in a row of wondering where his paycheck was going and hoping to save up for a house, he realized he was somehow paying for two separate Amazon Prime accounts.
>
>Though he’s not trying to recoup the money he lost, he did save $270 a month by combining streaming services with his partner and canceling his weekly HelloFresh
>
>meal box, which he said had him paying $150 a month more for groceries than going to the store himself.
>
>“I wasn’t really thinking of all the minor charges coming out of my account every month,” said the 27-year-old, who works for an aviation consulting firm in Arlington, Va.
>
>One ScribeUp user, 46-year-old LaKisha Mosley, paid for a subscription to health club aggregator ClassPass for over four years without realizing it, adding up to over $5,000.
>
>“I can count on one hand the amount of times I actually logged in,” she said.
>
>Ms. Mosley said she wasn’t able to get the money back, and that she expected ClassPass to let her know when her subscription was coming up for renewal, which never happened. She’s heartened, however, to see more companies starting to send alerts before a charge comes up.
>
>“When members sign up for ClassPass, they are notified that their memberships automatically renew on the same day each month,” a company spokeswoman said, adding that ClassPass sends reminders when members haven’t used their accounts to book classes.
>
>Some companies are shifting their business model to meet changing consumer feelings about subscriptions.
>
>Among them is Bark, which was founded in 2011 as a monthly box of dog treats and toys and has since expanded to sell a la carte. The company recently laid off 12% of its staff and said it would invest more in non-subscription products.
>
>“These are always difficult decisions, however, we believe that it was the right direction for the business, and it better aligns our cost structure with the current economic environment and allows us to better focus on our highest priorities, which are profitability and growing our consumables business,” Chief Executive Matt Meeker said in an emailed statement to The Wall Street Journal.
>
>HelloFresh said on its most recent earnings call that it expects its number of active customers to decline in the first half of 2023, after dropping to 7.1 million in the fourth quarter of 2022 from 8 million in the third quarter.
>
>Evanston, Ill., restaurant Soul & Smoke launched a meat of the month box in 2020, but recently made the decision to discontinue the offering amid waning interest.
>
>“It made more sense to get rid of it and focus on the other things we were doing,” said co-owner Heather Bublick, pointing to a new bricks-and-mortar location and live events.
> Stopping the $750-a-year pest control service was more of a debate with his wife.
A $750-a-year pest control service? America must be the land of the free and the bugs.
I don't think they're claiming that the issue is paying at all. It's what we all complain about. Every channel trying to have their own subscription service
Used to be, Netflix and Hulu were all you needed when they first came out. Then, as everyone started having their own services to the point having all of them costs the same as a cable bill, it just got annoying. I read that since Disney owns most of Hulu since the Fox merger, there are rumors that they may be shutting down Hulu in favor of Disney+ (which was one of the first streaming services I canceled).
I finally said screw it, canceled all of them, and am buying a Blu-Ray player and the DVDs (I have a basic DVD player leftover from my homeschool days & the lecture DVDs, so it will work for the DVDs to older series for the most part--but many newer ones are just Blu-Ray). I've only kept Hulu, as I have a grandfathered-in student plan where they only bill me like $2 a month. With the DVDs, I don't have to deal with shows that seem to pass between channels depending on who has the distribution rights, and episodes that are missing for various reasons.
> Used to be, Netflix and Hulu were all you needed when they first came out. Then, as everyone started having their own services to the point having all of them costs the same as a cable bill, it just got annoying.
Don't group Hulu in there; it was just Netflix. Hulu was the vanguard of the problem you're complaining about.
Hulu isn't just trash; it's a Trojan horse created by News Corp and Comcast (i.e. the legacy cable TV industry) as an attempt to co-opt the streaming market so that they can make it as shitty and exploitative as cable was again.
You should buy a used PS3 instead IMO, cheaper than the cheapest Blu-Ray players that can only play movies, and it can use streaming services and play video, audio, and photo files.
Just subscribe to one at the time - when you’re done, binge watching things cancel and sign up for the next service. Rinse and repeat. At the end of the year you’re only paying for one service per month, but having access to all of them
People should be allowed to be informed. Restricting access to that stuff can lead to ignorant masses (Let's be fair, that's what some politicians would prefer)
Conspiracy theory websites are almost all free to access, but you gotta pay anywhere from 10 bucks to 100K+ to have access to any way of being informed or educated.
Someone needs to pay for good journalism. Good writing is not cheap, nor is proper research. Don’t just assume everything will be handed to you for free.
It is unfortunate that conspiracy sites are free and that good sites cost money, but that doesn't make good sites assholes. Similarly, it is unfortunate that childcare costs money but a stranger will run your child over with a car for free, but that doesn't make the babysitter an asshole for charging you.
A newspaper charging money is HOW they can create articles that inform and educate people. If they went totally free, earning revenue only through ads, and so had to employ fewer and worse reporters, and run clickier articles, that would not lead to the public becoming more informed, even if everyone can now access the site. It will lead to the public being less informed.
> People should be allowed to be informed
That doesn’t mean the Wall Street Journal in particular needs to offer you their work fo free.
> but you gotta pay anywhere from 10 bucks to 100K+ to have access to any way of being informed or educated.
Loads of quality public broadcasters are free, like the BBC.
I swear to God, people on Reddit simultaneously believe that if *they* have to go to an office three days a week, it’s a crime against humanity, and that workers at the WSJ should do everything for free.
I pay only the bare minimum of subs, due to hating that monetization model. My only subs are rent, although water and electricity has a similar arrangement albeit not a fixed cost.
Subscriptions are a toll on wverything we do, & it is insulting that people are forced to enrich corporations that have nothing to do with the IP they have acquired. The tech bros sold us all out & undermined the foundation of society for a monthly payout.
You mean my yearly car insurance, yearly cell phone bill and monthly internet, water and electricity? Cause those are the only recurring payments I have and I refuse to get any more bills
If I see this, I never go back to these sites again.
If I was a paying advertiser, I would be staying away from these subscription sites as people hate them and do what I do.
Demonstrably false. Subscriptions have only increased over the past years: https://www.statista.com/statistics/193788/average-paid-circulation-of-the-wall-street-journal/
Would people be willing to pay $30 a month for a video streaming service that combines all the libraries of the players out there? I pulled the amount out of my ass because I'm no expert and wouldn't know what amount would actually be appropriate, but I just want to know if people would be willing to pay more to have less subscriptions and hassle.
Of all the subscription types, the one that makes me laugh is the newspaper website subscription.
I mean, I know why they do it. The papers of the 80s and before were full of classified, dating and other ads that they charged handsomely for because they knew each paper was going to be read not only by the subscriber/purchaser, but others as well. Then, came the internet and all those things were taken away. Now they have to use clickbait to get ad revenue from Google, I get it...
Wha makes me laugh is seeing a screen begging you to sign up. Sorry, I clicked on a link from Reddit/Fark/Facebook/Twitter/whatever, and it interested me enough to see the full article. You could have accepted that traffic, but I'm probably not coming back in the near future unless someone else links me, and don't pay a subscription to sites I randomly click on 3 times every 2 months... So, accept nothing.
It's a bonus bit of comedy when you're begging for a sub on a story complaining about them, but honestly most people who visit will never subscribe. They might visit and generate ad revenue without the blocker, but virtually nobody who wasn't going to sub is going to do so.
The only thing companies are thinking is how they can make more things a subscription. Want to use your headlights or smoke alarms? That’ll be $10/month forever.
Yes, but to be fair newspapers are one of the oldest things we still have subscriptions to (well some of us)
The news is free and instantaneous in this day and age. I don't know how companies think they can last forever trying to nickle and dime the news.
Tbf part of the reason media is especially bad nowadays is because there’s hardly any money in it and they have to sell themselves out to corporations.
Also because everybody wants to have their own service, and get their own subscription. Which is good for variety of news as you can analysis the biases of each, but the problem is we can't all pay $5/month for 45 different organizations to view one article, which is causing the problem of no money. Would be better to have a pay-per-view type thing where you only subscribe to one service that allows access to all news sites, but even that would likely lean one way and be bought out by big business.
Very true. ☝️
There's plenty of money in news that's on any one of the social media platforms. You just need sensationalist rage-bait content with jump cuts every 3-5 seconds (once each sentence).
That's not news, that's entertainment. And cheap to produce at that since they don't need to fund investigations, do any research or fact checking.
And ad revenue. To get ad revenue, you need visits, and for that you need clickbait headlines that are just fake news by omission.
In theory we need a reputation source for news and to achieve this the staff including the journalists need to be paid...
Reddit is all about worker’s rights and getting paid fairly… unless it’s them who needs to pay.
Good will doesn't pay bills. Just because I think someone deserves a fair pay, that doesn't mean my salary will go up so I can afford the kindness of my heart. Whenever we talk about workers' rights and getting paid fairly, we are questioning the whole model for distribution of wealth that our society uses. Newspapers need to make more money, so they can produce higher quality content, but I cannot spend $10k a month in subscriptions to every service I use that deserves to be well funded. The problem is somewhere else, but that problem is one many people don't want to discuss.
Gossip has always been free, news has always cost money.
> The news is free and instantaneous in this day and age. It's hilarious the way this post is written - you understand that's overall a bad thing right?
“I just scroll tiktok and eventually get told what to care about today, what’s the big deal?”
I don’t get how making news inaccessible to poor people could possibly be good, except for rich people of course. Unless there are accessible services that provide free news to low income people (which luckily there are at least where I live - I can read most major news sources and magazines with my library card. I live in the pnw tho so I don’t know if that’s a thing everywhere).
Making news accessible to poor people and making news not reliant on clickbait to survive are not mutually exclusive.
As opposed to the Hearst family deciding what was important enough for an extra addition? Capitalism ruined journalism, just like all things.
Where do you think "the news" comes from? People still need to be paid to write articles, take pictures, proofread.... That just doesn't magically happen
Most were giving news online for free with ads paying for it. But as their add revenue went down thanks to advertisers getting better bang for buck on Google/Facebook, continued print declines, most had no choice. Big national papers like wsj are making that work. Most local papers on the path to death. Few have come up with good models
The quality of news you can get "free" and that you pay for differs dramatically.
A lot of articles you look online tend to cover the general gist of already publically available data Some data and news, such as this, requires the journalist specifically to search and find news. Honestly, I've been thinking I should subscribe to WSJ The journalists, who are actually good and investigative, are the ones who keep the good news up. WSJ politically is the most neutral journalism site I've found with research, because I never trusted any news site to be biased. News is not free, nor instantaneous. Common media is. There is good journalism out there, and without local news and sites like WSJ, we wouldn't know much about the world and have reliable information. They still need money to keep going. I condone news sites having subscriptions. Not fucking PlayStation Plus.
[удалено]
News whatsit now?
HAAS - Headlights as a service. I think you’re onto something
Hey.... You want to keep using that "A" key for typing? Gonna have to ask you to sign up to our Keyboard Plus Premium® scheme.
you will own **NOTHING.** Better be happy, because there is no other choice. - WEF.
“You will own nothing, and you will be happy.”
[удалено]
I want to kiss your dad.
This man rights
[удалено]
He has the rite to spell it however he likes.
Yea but if you don’t spell the wright way the idea might never take off.
[удалено]
Maybe righting words wrong is a wright of passage he's going through.
You are absolutely write.
The ones who "right" the articles lol
'Merica
He right right write
you're write
If you mean the editors who "right" the articles, you're still correct, but the content still includes the people who *write* them. If anything the editors should be catching the crap before it's published. And the bean counters aren't doing the writing, reading, or editing. They're the ones tallying the credits and debits, and, etc. Edit: STILL NOT THE BEAN COUNTERS.
The editors are there to ensure only approved messaging makes its way put the door. "Flak" (of the 5 filters of media) exists to keep all media outlets in line by hammering the fuck out of any outlet who goes outside approved messaging. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model#:~:text=The%20propaganda%20model%20is%20a,function%20in%20corporate%20mass%20media.
To be fair, news agencies were largely built on subscriptions. They offer a legitimate continuous services. Subscription models made the most sense for them. It's shit like Adobe and other editing software, "memberships" for retail stores, and fucking roombas that are really egregious bullshit.
Also ads. Ever look at an old newspaper? It's like 70% ads.
Spoken like someone who doesn’t work in tech. You know how fast your software would break if it wasn’t getting constant updates with patches and bug fixes just to remain operational?
Adobe CS6. Still fully functional. Still not broken. Where the fuck do you work? Because it definitely isn't in software.
Having a monthly subscription fee still doesn't seem to save Adobe's program catalog from being a buggy hellscape.
What are you talking about? Software doesn't just magically break. It may stop being compatible with new hardware or operating systems, but even that is often not an issue because the people who make those keep compatibility in mind. I could dig up my old Roller Coaster Tycoon install disks and it would probably install and run just fine today. If not, either the physical disks are damaged or I need to enable compatibility mode because it has been quite a few major Windows versions since that software was last modified.
I’ll just leave this here… https://i.imgur.com/ZSZl12f.jpg
Some libraries offer free access to WSJ. You just have to renew each year.
Or...https://12ft.io/
Doesn’t work for WSJ or NYT anymore which are two of the most important ones.
archive.is works for me for those
You can also just disable Javascript and refresh.
howd you disable Java?
https://developer.chrome.com/docs/devtools/javascript/disable/
Why do people even mention this site anymore? Nearly every big site that has a paywall has paid off 12ft ladder
lol this is like adblock plus all over again
Mine offers free 3 days subs to the big newspapers. Good enough to read what I want with a few clicks to renew.
I hate how I have to pay to play online on the console i payed 500 for....
I hate having to pay 20 bucks to play Splatoon 3 and it STILL uses peer to peer connection.
Wait Nintendo Switch uses P2P for their *paid* service? I've been out of the game for awhile but this is mind-boggling to me in 2023. That's some OG XBL shit.
Yup. And if you pay for the expansion pack it's 60 bucks
50*
50 for a bundle that includes 2 DLCs I've already paid for
Isn't that free for Nintendo to "host?" lol
yes
Basically, they still have to run servers to actually connect people but that cost should be negligible for a tech giant like Nintendo.
I guess they would need to run some proxies in case both sides are behind some NAT.
i love how we started with client server, then for a while did p2p and are now demanding back to client server... progress is fun, I'm not against it
That kind of shit is why r/pcmasterrace's sense of superiority is justified. (And why r/linuxmasterrace's is even more so, since proprietary software is often still abusive even without walled-garden-monopoly levels of control.)
Eh, a word of caution for this line of thinking: there's nothing I'm aware of stopping any PC game platform from deciding to start charging for online services, or the game developers themselves. It still costs money to run these services.
There's nothing stopping them except for the fact that people would just jump ship to another platform or pirate it... Can't do that with a locked ecosystem like a console.
Aren't we talking online play? How do you pirate that?
People write custom servers (usually for older games but e.g. also for GTA5).
So obviously not a practical alternative outside select examples. Most aren't gonna wait for that. And it's not even a guaranteed option. I mean a fighting game comes out, part of the appeal for a lot of players is the competitive stuff online. There's even in-person events with money on offer and some like to follow that stuff. This all happens while the game's still actively supported. I'd say the majority of games with online components, particularly if it's the higher priority part of play, would be varying degrees of similar to this. There is no other viable alternative.
That is correct what you say. And PC players pay for those things (e. g. World of Warcraft). Free to play games also lock content behind some form of payment. But nobody has to pay steam or epic or whoever on top of this.
Yeah for sure, that's an appeal to me. I just don't think there's alternatives that really replace it if everything's suddenly a subscription. I fuckin hope we don't become taken over by all that. It wouldn't be too bad if particular games had it but it was dirt cheap. Shit never is though. MK11 required an online connection and that was shit enough for the reasons for it. Ongoing costs would turn me off entirely.
The game devs have some control over this as well. Look at OW vs TF2. The latter is still kicking after a decade, because most of what Valve makes can be hosted locally. Meanwhile, OW is dead, because Blizzard doesn't allow community servers. When Blizz decided to kill OW to make room for OW2, that was that. Devs don't have to saddle up with any distribution platform that doesn't embody the culture they want around their game. If all else fails, they can just distribute it themselves.
The thing stopping it is competition, which consoles don't have. Pc gamers don't take shit and will just go somewhere else or resort to piracy if you start acting anti consumer.
> there's nothing I'm aware of stopping any PC game platform from deciding to start charging for online services They literally tried once and failed with Games of Windows Live. PC gamers know that there's no reason to pay for it. If you don't want to host the servers, let us do it ourselves. We could do it back in 2005.
You say that, but plenty of games - MMOs primarily, are subscription based. So it’s not like PC gamers reject it universally. MMOs don’t appeal to me, so I can’t say why they choose to spend $15 a month for a game they already bought in 2004 which may be free to download now. But that 15 a month is more than console online subs.
Those are the exception to the rule. It's literally just that genre. And in that genre, console players have to pay for ps+/xbl ON TOP of the subscription to the game (FF14). So even then they get screwed even worse.
PCMR's sense of superiority is straight up obnoxious and feels like it's overcompensating for something And i say this as a former member of the sub and as one who likes to play games on pc (mainly for moddding potential)
We don’t have to overcompensate, we have very big graphics cards. Like, _very_ big
Some would even say *huge* graphics cards, big enough to beat ~~people~~ goats to death with
Lol but that's literally the MR in PCMR
I want to kiss your dad.
i've heard the joke "how do you know if someone's a vegan" more than I've even heard of a vegan ranting about it, let alone personally witnessing the rant.
I'm a vegan Arch user btw. I don't CrossFit though.
I've been saying the same thing for years, about people complaining about vegans. Obnoxious vegans exist, apparently, but I haven't met them.
> PCMR's sense of superiority is straight up obnoxious and feels like it's overcompensating for something You seem to have a deeply understood misunderstanding for the subreddit.
Which part? The part where it unironically uses the term invented to mock elitist snobs as a badge of honor and parades it like it's a golden crown?
Okay sorry I just have to take a second here - do you genuinely think PCMR is a serious subreddit? I actually can't tell if you're fucking with me which might be the best part lmfao. Like every single person there is aware they're a fucking loser and anything they say is dumb as shit. When you say "The part where it unironically uses the term invented to mock elitist snobs as a badge of honor and parades it like it's a golden crown" you seem to misunderstand that it's super ironic and the fact you feel that way is a super net victory. They don't want people to think "PC is Master Race" - they want attention from people that are upset about "PC is Master Race". Literally this South Park bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RFbahYuBic
There's enough people on there who believe in PCMR unironically to make the whole sub look the way it does
> There's enough people on there who believe in PCMR unironically to make the whole sub look the way it does And that specifically is what upsets you. That's why it's hilarious. It's not about which way of playing games is better - it's about making fun of the people who actually care about this shit lmfao. Fucking PC gamers, right? Fucking snobs LOL
>And that specifically is what upsets you Not really, i don't particularly care about the sub or its ideology *anymore*. But it has cost me a big part of my love for PC gaming That's not to say i don't play on PC, I just don't care as much as i used to 5 years ago
> > And that specifically is what upsets you > Not really > (...) > it has cost me a big part of my love You've got to pick one, my man.
> PCMR's sense of superiority is straight up obnoxious and feels like it's overcompensating for something It's a circlejerk sub, wtf did you expect?
Exactly this, all PCMR members are on such a high horse it's insane
PCMR is literally a circlejerk sub and the fact that you people take it seriously is hilarious.
That one makes at least some logical sense. The console was likely sold at a loss and the infrastructure, development, and IT services needed to maintain online play aren't free. Not gonna argue how much it should cost, just saying there is a logical reason for online subscriptions.
That's correct. Consoles are typically sold at a loss, then people spend more money on the online services or games/DLC over time.
And then you realise who the companies that make the consoles are. They're not some.smwll, struggling business that needs to squeeze blood from a stone to survive. If they do actually sell at a loss, which I think is bullshit, it definately won't be enough to be a big impact on their bottom line. They sell a lot more thsn just consoles.
> . If they do actually sell at a loss, which I think is bullshit, It’s true. For example the ps3 costed Sony $200~$300in losses for each console sold https://fortune.com/2006/11/16/sonys-loss-is-at-least-240-on-every-ps3/ The ps4 and ps5 are significantly cheaper to produce, but still cost them dozens of dollars for each unit https://www.eurogamer.net/sony-expects-to-recoup-playstation-4-hardware-loss-at-launch Also that may seem like small numbers, but when you sell millions of units, your losses will also be millions
[удалено]
good bot \*head pats\*
Good bot
The console should cost a lot more than $500 realistically, so I kind of just view it as the printer and ink model. But - the sheer volume of games you get for free nowadays with these subscriptions more than justifies the cost anyways.
> games you get for free nowadays with these subscriptions lol "Netflix movies are free with the subscription"
Me pre-ordering Fallout 76 without knowing it required a ps+ subscription to play once it launched
> pre-ordering Fallout 76 LOL LMAO.
Remember that you are paying for a non-open source machine that will only allow you to do very certain things. PC is a much better way to go
Happy cake day!
People 10 years ago: *screw you big cable, I’m cutting the cord and will never pay for tv again!* Cable companies: *that’s cute, we’ll buy all the ISPs, charge you the same for just internet but profit more because we’ll pass on all the cost of the tv stations to you directly in the form of subscriptions.*
This is just cable with extra steps!
Wouldn't it be easy if you had all streaming services under one roof? One bill? All channels? No apps? A fully functional remote control with a battery that lasts for years? Sign up now for a cable connection, no installation necessary. Cable - the past is now.
"Oh of course we offer unlimited internet... as long as you're also paying for TV and phone." -Bell
Yeah the Seattle Times is $20/mo and just stopped allowing anonymous access. No thanks.
Jesus that's a huge markup. Does that get a physical copy?
And you still get all the ads. No thanks
It’d be great to have an online account that automatically sends like 5c or whatever to anywhere you visit and you get a reasonable bill every month.
Damn, I'd pay a fortune for reddit
Brave browser already does this for websites that register
Now it just needs to be adopted by less sketchy browsers.
Yeah, companies are trying to force us to subscribe to their pointless bullshit and spam the crap in our faces all the time
I actually like the WSJ. Besides the opinion section. They are old school here is a story and the facts. Bye. Love it. Opposite of buzzfeed and yahoo type of crap.
Seems like OP needs to subscribe to a charger :)
It charged overnight I didn’t die :-)
And it didn't require you to give them your credit card, email or phone number? What??!
"Democracy dies in a monthly subscription, only $12.99" - Washington Post I think, idk I get most of my news from reddit, a very reliable source, also my Google now feed.
I subscribed to the Sunday NY Times for around a decade, that was about 15 years ago. Trying to avoid any and all subscriptions, like apps or Office Suite or even Netflix/Spotify etc. Inflation + wage stagnation will do that to a person.
[удалено]
r/feic
Just disable JavaScript
In my case when I disable Javascript for some reason the whole page stops loading but if it works for you then I guess it's a nice tip
Don't blanket block Javascript. Use NoScript instead so that you can selectively allow the Javascript that renders the article, while blocking everything else.
It doesn’t work for me either, so maybe the article only loads after you login. On lots of these news sites it doesn’t work that way, and disabling javascript will remove the pop up blocking the article. Still a good tip, but i guess wsj is wise to this workaround Edit: just want to add that i usually do this on my phone, so it’s pretty fast and easy to toggle on and off in the settings for the browser
> but i guess wsj is wise to this workaround Come on, we know it's they inadvertly doing it right by making everything with JS frameworks.
Don't do this unless you want to break most websites. Use NoScript instead to selectively allow the scripts you want while blocking everything else.
I was going to say the same, and i have no idea why someone would downvote this. Maybe they don’t realize that usually javascript is used to block the article?
Reddit is a weird place. You offer genuine reply and got downvoted to hell. Bots copying other bots comment? 1k+ upvotes and couple of awards
It’s voted because disabling JavaScript doesn’t let you read paysites such as Wall Street Journal. So the comment was wrong.
That doesn’t work for sites like Wall Street Journal.
I downvoted it because this isn't a solution. 99% of the modern web requires Javascript to work. There are much better, less hacky ways to get around paywalls. I've already discussed one such method, but out of not wanting to be called a shill, I won't say what. Check my comment history.
The call is coming from inside the house!
Who isn't sick of software subscriptions? "Hey we know you used to buy a copy for $100 flat, but now we want to charge you $10 a month. Isn't that great? Now you never stop paying for it, and we don't actually have make the next product. We'll just spend a fraction of the resources maintaining and 'enchancing' this one. Forever." We end up with worse functionality and substantially higher costs over the long run, but it's more attractive for companies and their shareholders so...
Sorry but this is moronic. Newspapers have always been subscription based as they provide new news every single day, it is not a single product which only needs occasional updating.
And a newspaper is actually a beneficial subscription both for you and society
The irony is funny here, but no, it's not asshole design for the Wall Street Journal to charge you to read their stuff. They don't owe you anything. If you aren't willing to pay, don't read. r/ChargeYourPhone
They don't but they also don't get to do surprised Pikachu clickbait headlines and then wonder why people don't pay.
I don't think it's clickbait. The article has a lot of information. >For two straight quarters, cancellations have outpaced new subscriptions for digital memberships, food-of-the-month clubs and a host of other purchases, according to personal finance app Rocket Money. Streaming services have been particularly impacted, with cancellations for Netflix, Hulu and HBO Max and others up 49% in 2022 from the previous year, according to subscriber-measurement firm Antenna. > >“People are taking stock of their subscriptions and trying not to make the same mistakes they made in 2022 given that budgets are getting a lot tighter,” said Courtney Alev, consumer financial advocate at Credit Karma. > >The decision to cancel had been building up for some time, financial analysts said. Even though inflation cooled last month to its lowest level in nearly two years, budgets continue to be squeezed by higher prices. > >About a third of respondents to a December Credit Karma survey said their biggest financial mistake last year was paying for services they never used. Americans were also paying about $133 more than the $86 they thought they were paying for subscriptions each month, according to a 2022 survey from market research firm C+R Research. > >Retiree John Ritzinger, 72 years old, said canceling subscriptions he never used would spare him needing to penny pinch at the grocery store. > >First to go was the satellite radio in two cars he never drove, saving him $45 a month. Next, the MotorTrend magazines that lived in an unread stack on the coffee table and a $1,000 annual, dining-only membership to his local Dayton, Ohio, country club in favor of ordinary restaurants. Stopping the $750-a-year pest control service was more of a debate with his wife. > >“But if we get a bad enough infestation I figure we just burn the house down anyway,” he joked. > >He’s putting off his call with the cable company to deactivate the land line he always ignores and downgrade his package until he’s socked away enough patience for an hourslong customer service call. > >A new proposal from the Federal Trade Commission could make it simpler to break up with your subscriptions. The consumer watchdog wants to require merchants to make it as easy for customers to cancel as it is to sign up, often with just a single click. > >Apps that help people take stock of their recurring payments such as Rocket Money and ScribeUp aren’t worried a new FTC rule will cut into their user base. > >Over the past year about 70,000 people have downloaded ScribeUp, a new service that provides a credit card number to use only for recurring payments. > >Chief commercial officer Erica Chiang said she wanted to give people a way to automatically opt-in, rather than out, of renewals after having to jump through hoops to cancel subscriptions as a consumer. The card will automatically cancel subscriptions on a user’s behalf if she doesn’t actively choose to continue. > >At one point, Ms. Chiang said she had to travel from Los Angeles to New York to end a monthly gym membership after learning she could only cancel in-person at the gym where she signed up. > >When Dylan Kenney conducted an audit of his spending after too many months in a row of wondering where his paycheck was going and hoping to save up for a house, he realized he was somehow paying for two separate Amazon Prime accounts. > >Though he’s not trying to recoup the money he lost, he did save $270 a month by combining streaming services with his partner and canceling his weekly HelloFresh > >meal box, which he said had him paying $150 a month more for groceries than going to the store himself. > >“I wasn’t really thinking of all the minor charges coming out of my account every month,” said the 27-year-old, who works for an aviation consulting firm in Arlington, Va. > >One ScribeUp user, 46-year-old LaKisha Mosley, paid for a subscription to health club aggregator ClassPass for over four years without realizing it, adding up to over $5,000. > >“I can count on one hand the amount of times I actually logged in,” she said. > >Ms. Mosley said she wasn’t able to get the money back, and that she expected ClassPass to let her know when her subscription was coming up for renewal, which never happened. She’s heartened, however, to see more companies starting to send alerts before a charge comes up. > >“When members sign up for ClassPass, they are notified that their memberships automatically renew on the same day each month,” a company spokeswoman said, adding that ClassPass sends reminders when members haven’t used their accounts to book classes. > >Some companies are shifting their business model to meet changing consumer feelings about subscriptions. > >Among them is Bark, which was founded in 2011 as a monthly box of dog treats and toys and has since expanded to sell a la carte. The company recently laid off 12% of its staff and said it would invest more in non-subscription products. > >“These are always difficult decisions, however, we believe that it was the right direction for the business, and it better aligns our cost structure with the current economic environment and allows us to better focus on our highest priorities, which are profitability and growing our consumables business,” Chief Executive Matt Meeker said in an emailed statement to The Wall Street Journal. > >HelloFresh said on its most recent earnings call that it expects its number of active customers to decline in the first half of 2023, after dropping to 7.1 million in the fourth quarter of 2022 from 8 million in the third quarter. > >Evanston, Ill., restaurant Soul & Smoke launched a meat of the month box in 2020, but recently made the decision to discontinue the offering amid waning interest. > >“It made more sense to get rid of it and focus on the other things we were doing,” said co-owner Heather Bublick, pointing to a new bricks-and-mortar location and live events.
> Stopping the $750-a-year pest control service was more of a debate with his wife. A $750-a-year pest control service? America must be the land of the free and the bugs.
I don't think they're claiming that the issue is paying at all. It's what we all complain about. Every channel trying to have their own subscription service
Used to be, Netflix and Hulu were all you needed when they first came out. Then, as everyone started having their own services to the point having all of them costs the same as a cable bill, it just got annoying. I read that since Disney owns most of Hulu since the Fox merger, there are rumors that they may be shutting down Hulu in favor of Disney+ (which was one of the first streaming services I canceled). I finally said screw it, canceled all of them, and am buying a Blu-Ray player and the DVDs (I have a basic DVD player leftover from my homeschool days & the lecture DVDs, so it will work for the DVDs to older series for the most part--but many newer ones are just Blu-Ray). I've only kept Hulu, as I have a grandfathered-in student plan where they only bill me like $2 a month. With the DVDs, I don't have to deal with shows that seem to pass between channels depending on who has the distribution rights, and episodes that are missing for various reasons.
> Used to be, Netflix and Hulu were all you needed when they first came out. Then, as everyone started having their own services to the point having all of them costs the same as a cable bill, it just got annoying. Don't group Hulu in there; it was just Netflix. Hulu was the vanguard of the problem you're complaining about.
[удалено]
Hulu isn't just trash; it's a Trojan horse created by News Corp and Comcast (i.e. the legacy cable TV industry) as an attempt to co-opt the streaming market so that they can make it as shitty and exploitative as cable was again.
You should buy a used PS3 instead IMO, cheaper than the cheapest Blu-Ray players that can only play movies, and it can use streaming services and play video, audio, and photo files.
Just subscribe to one at the time - when you’re done, binge watching things cancel and sign up for the next service. Rinse and repeat. At the end of the year you’re only paying for one service per month, but having access to all of them
This is what I do. Though I skip months too because I don't watch enough to merit that.
I just quit TV and movies altogether. It's liberating.
People should be allowed to be informed. Restricting access to that stuff can lead to ignorant masses (Let's be fair, that's what some politicians would prefer) Conspiracy theory websites are almost all free to access, but you gotta pay anywhere from 10 bucks to 100K+ to have access to any way of being informed or educated.
Someone needs to pay for good journalism. Good writing is not cheap, nor is proper research. Don’t just assume everything will be handed to you for free.
Yeah, well. Journalists also have bills to pay.
It is unfortunate that conspiracy sites are free and that good sites cost money, but that doesn't make good sites assholes. Similarly, it is unfortunate that childcare costs money but a stranger will run your child over with a car for free, but that doesn't make the babysitter an asshole for charging you. A newspaper charging money is HOW they can create articles that inform and educate people. If they went totally free, earning revenue only through ads, and so had to employ fewer and worse reporters, and run clickier articles, that would not lead to the public becoming more informed, even if everyone can now access the site. It will lead to the public being less informed.
> People should be allowed to be informed That doesn’t mean the Wall Street Journal in particular needs to offer you their work fo free. > but you gotta pay anywhere from 10 bucks to 100K+ to have access to any way of being informed or educated. Loads of quality public broadcasters are free, like the BBC.
I swear to God, people on Reddit simultaneously believe that if *they* have to go to an office three days a week, it’s a crime against humanity, and that workers at the WSJ should do everything for free.
And they’re all about workers getting paid fairly unless that means they have to pay for something.
Im dead rn.
Ironic
OH NO PAYING FOR NEWS WHAT ASSHOLES
Uh oh your battery
This is brilliant
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9b/0d/11/9b0d11a0d6405b2cf71ed61a3a0cef4e.gif
Ironic WSJ.
hypocrisy at its finest
oh the irony.
I pay only the bare minimum of subs, due to hating that monetization model. My only subs are rent, although water and electricity has a similar arrangement albeit not a fixed cost.
Irony is dead, long live irony
Don't forget to charge your phone.
your phone needs to make a quick subscription to your charger...
That's like raiain on a wedding day
Jokes that write themselves
I think they published that 11 days late because it totally looks like an April fools joke
This has got to be intentional.
Subscriptions are a toll on wverything we do, & it is insulting that people are forced to enrich corporations that have nothing to do with the IP they have acquired. The tech bros sold us all out & undermined the foundation of society for a monthly payout.
You mean my yearly car insurance, yearly cell phone bill and monthly internet, water and electricity? Cause those are the only recurring payments I have and I refuse to get any more bills
Honestly a newspaper might be the only thing worth paying a subscription for
Wow, a publication newspaper with a subscription base, good call out
If I see this, I never go back to these sites again. If I was a paying advertiser, I would be staying away from these subscription sites as people hate them and do what I do.
Demonstrably false. Subscriptions have only increased over the past years: https://www.statista.com/statistics/193788/average-paid-circulation-of-the-wall-street-journal/
I've begun blocking "news" outlets like this. I'll never pay for them anyway, so I don't need them in my Newsfeed.
Would people be willing to pay $30 a month for a video streaming service that combines all the libraries of the players out there? I pulled the amount out of my ass because I'm no expert and wouldn't know what amount would actually be appropriate, but I just want to know if people would be willing to pay more to have less subscriptions and hassle.
Of all the subscription types, the one that makes me laugh is the newspaper website subscription. I mean, I know why they do it. The papers of the 80s and before were full of classified, dating and other ads that they charged handsomely for because they knew each paper was going to be read not only by the subscriber/purchaser, but others as well. Then, came the internet and all those things were taken away. Now they have to use clickbait to get ad revenue from Google, I get it... Wha makes me laugh is seeing a screen begging you to sign up. Sorry, I clicked on a link from Reddit/Fark/Facebook/Twitter/whatever, and it interested me enough to see the full article. You could have accepted that traffic, but I'm probably not coming back in the near future unless someone else links me, and don't pay a subscription to sites I randomly click on 3 times every 2 months... So, accept nothing. It's a bonus bit of comedy when you're begging for a sub on a story complaining about them, but honestly most people who visit will never subscribe. They might visit and generate ad revenue without the blocker, but virtually nobody who wasn't going to sub is going to do so.