[xhkkffbf]

As a society and as individuals we have a choice: pay for journalism through ads or pay through subscriptions. If you're going to be reveling in ad blocking software, at least try to be consistent and pay for what you read by purchasing a subscription.

[lapinot]

Isn't MIT (publisher of article) supposedly funded by public money (or even if it's not it's probably some kind of non-profit/charity)? This has already been paid for. Imho journalism shouldn't be gated by money since you definitely want everybody to somehow get access to it: the only decent way to fund it is with progressive taxes, like science hospitals or schools.

[kordlessagain]

> As a society and as individuals we have a choice: pay for journalism through ads or pay through subscriptions.

There can be no singular choice that allows us what we want as individuals and what we need as a group. By now, most of us understand that advertising is one way to monitize online content, but the fact is that some companies who use advertising have taken their efforts far beyond anything reasonable. Sites with popovers, moving elements, content replacement, failure to load without JavaScript, blinking, annoying, trolling with imagery, you name it the ad market has done it to us.

So, we're suppose to accept advertising as some legitimate ad model because...why?

Now subscriptions are interesting, but if the article content is only accessible through subscription, then how does the search for that content work?

Advertising.

[castorp]

So I should pay $50 dollar just to read one article? (And pay for a foreign currency transfer on top of that?) There is no option to read the article without signing up for one year subscription.

From a link shared on a public news aggregation site, I would expect the content to be publicly available as well (or at least some kind of indicator in the title)