[linuxasheviller]

> Keep in mind that the journalist who did the research and wrote the article did not have a say in how the employer who enabled them to write this piece generates revenue.

In a way, she did. She is not an NYT employee, but rather, a professor at UNC Chapel Hill who could have published this piece elsewhere.

To be clear, I don't fault her for her choice at all. Just pointing out that we all "opt-in" to this system when we participate in it, and that's a part of the problem.

[dangus]

I do agree with you, though I think opting out of the practices of most websites is impractical. The utility of my usage of the Internet far outweighs some advertisers figuring out what I like to buy. We do need more robust advertising privacy laws, though.

By not being a NYT employee she has even less of a say in the matter. I'm sure she knows that nobody's going to read her article if it's published in The Daily Tar Heel.

If someone gave you the opportunity to publish an article in The New York Times would you say no?

I should also point out that the print edition of the NYT is still widely circulated, and it seems this article would have appeared in the Opinion section, tracker free :-)

[ricardobeat]

This is taking a bit too far, but if someone offered you a fully-paid trip to the Caribbean* would you say no?

* with money from dubious origin

[Bartweiss]

> Just pointing out that we all "opt-in" to this system when we participate in it, and that's a part of the problem.

This really is a significant point.

All-visitor paywalls already crumbled, and a few of the worst excesses of tracking at least getting debated, so this is a place where users can get actual traction. It's the same sort of collective action problem as voting, true; writers and publishers have far more influence than any given reader. But it's also true that the space is far more open than voting.

There are a lot of news sites (e.g. The Boston Globe) which have shut out incognito access, filled their sites with trackers, and loaded up on dark patterns to push people towards misleadingly-priced subscriptions. And for almost everything they publish, there's minimal cost to just... not reading it. If it's a major story, it will be covered elsewhere. I know I'm not changing the world when I skip their links, but I'm protecting a bit of my own data, and putting a bit of pressure on them to do better.