Journalistic integrity doesn't die if your content is worth the price of admission.

Excessive ads on a site that serves click bait isn't a site worth a 100% hit against your PC, unless it allows you the profit, the entire amount or a portion depending how you are mining the coins using Moreno.

New York Times wants to charge for subscription over 5 articles a month, they put forth the effort to earn it. While not abusing my trust. They aren't forcing a user into a choice that is similar to a loss/loss situation like Salon.

I pay for electricity, I pay for internet. I pay for hardware. I don't pay directly to visit a site online. I pay a fee to access the content if it is locked down. But if someone wants to places ads, that doesn't take a hit on a system. Then the content is worth it.

If Salon wants to offer a choice of blocking those who AdBlock, or mine a currency for them. The site isn't worth any bit of it's content. I'll waste my processing power and actual power bill on something that benefits my own life and not the Salon Media Group.

I don't see how independence in funding by default is supposed to mean journalistic integrity is present.

Now the incentive is to keep the user on the site longer. Excessively long articles?

> I think it’s a good thing. Better than sacrificing journalistic integrity for clickbait that helps drive more ads

err ... they are doing both.