[qwert-e]

I use the aptly-named "innocuous Chrome extension"

[melling]

I've paid for the digital subscription for 15 years. What's the aversion to more people paying? Perhaps the price would go down.

[8ytecoder]

I took advantage of the Post and NYT's price reduction. Paying something like $10-$15 a month is pretty much a no-brainer. But at $30, I don't know if I'd read it enough to justify the cost.

[rvdavis]

I am on my third month as a paying subscriber, and it is worth it to me. I am lower-middle class, so my budget is pretty tight. I wouldn't mind a discount!

[jbob2000]

Because if it's important, I'll hear about it somewhere else. And if it's interesting, I can find other articles. Content is a dime a dozen these days, why would I pay for it?

[sopooneo]

When I pay, it is out of a sense of civic duty. Democracy requires journalism and journalism requires money.

[ProAm]

Because good content is not a dime a dozen and most content is regurgitated content from real sites/journalists that do the work.

[booleandilemma]

I pay for the WSJ. They write quality articles and I like to know that I'm helping their staff put food on the table.

[baumandm]

Classic tragedy of the commons.

[tnzn]

A failed concept (though in that specific case it might be on point)

[dogecoinbase]

Because if you're not paying for it, someone else is paying for it to be shown to you.

[vertis]

You can pay for for it and still be served what someone else is paying for you to see.

[whatisani]

> Perhaps the price would go down

highly unlikely unless there is competition and if there is competition, you'd now have to pay two outlets to sustain the competition. There might be more valid factors to bring the price down, but this is the first I could think of.

[Nullabillity]

Presumably Murdoch, for one.

[nafizh]

Because I don't want to pay for any kind of media that is owned by News Corp.

[dageshi]

You presumably don't want to read it either then?