[textmode]

"Recent controversy over Facebook Inc.'s hunger for personal data has surfaced the notion that the online advertising industry could be hazardous to our privacy and well-being."

The NYT can publish stories centering on this notion despite being ??% reliant on said online advertising in order to stay in business.

Would Google (or Facebook) publish similar warnings against the annoyances and harms of online advertising despite being 98% reliant on said online advertising in order to stay in business?

How strong an argument is "Newspapers use trackers in their online editions therefore any news they publish about tracking has no educational value." (or is somehow compromised in some way)

Did newspapers have a choice in whether they chose to participate in the www as we see it today (overrun with advertising and fraudulent, insidious tactics)?

If yes, what was the choice?

What would happen to these newspapers if they failed to "cooperate" with Google?

[soared]

They'd lose massive amounts of revenue and cease to exist. Even with digital advertising most newspapers are dead or barely staying afloat. They all struggled to convert to digital and tracking-based advertising was just one of many life boats they tried to save themselves with.