[52-6F-62]

It appears your statement is a touch inaccurate:

https://www.statista.com/chart/3755/digital-subscribers-of-t...

I also have a hard time understanding why it should be free. If you don't want to pay for it, you don't have to pay for it. You also aren't entitled to their for free no more than the writers at the New York Times are entitled to your work for free.

[hn_throwaway_99]

I don't have a problem with the content not being available for free. But the publishers want the best of both worlds. They could easily, for example, make all content require a login, but they know that would kill their readership. This idea that they are somehow entitled to know how many times a non-logged in user has visited their site is absurd.

[kyledrake]

As that article points out, that is far more related to Trump being elected (something they played a major role in by helping squash a progressive reform candidate in favor of an institutionalist neoliberal) than to their browser paywall strategy. It says far more about how online media is rewarded for making things worse, a scary lesson I hope not too many people learn.

I don't get news from the NYT and am quite happy continuing to do that regardless of their monetary strategy (and by the way, Google is extremely profitable with free + ads).

[52-6F-62]

The starting date is in 2011 when they introduced a metered paywall and has seen an increase yearly. The "Trump effect" was a substantial boost in 2016, but only a part of the overall trend.

Google isn't free.

https://hackernoon.com/how-does-google-earn-money-as-simple-...