Hacker News Reader

You're correct of course, but I don't really see how this isn't a vacuous observation. Yes clearly our perceptions are at odds, but that has nothing to do with the reality of whether or not they need to be doing that tracking. Obviously they think they need to, or they wouldn't do it. But I think I've laid out a pretty strong argument that they actually don't need to, which leads me to believe that they actually haven't considered it seriously enough to give it a shot.

Would they be as profitable? Maybe, maybe not. Would they become unprofitable? No, strictly speaking. I'm confident in that because the NYT weathered the decline of traditional news media before the rise or hyper-targeted ads, and because I've maintained a free website in the Alexa top 100,000 on my own, with well over 500,000 unique visitors per day. That doesn't come close to the online audience of a major newspaper, but it's illustrative. There is a phenomenal amount of advertising optimization you can do using basic analytics based on page requests and basic demographic data that still respects privacy and doesn't track individual users. I outlined a few methods, such as Daring Fireball's.

Maybe instead of this being a philosophical issue of perspective between a user and an organization, it's an issue of an organization that hasn't examined how else it can exist. Does the NYT need over 10,000 employees? Is there a long tail of unpopular and generally underperforming content that nevertheless sticks around, sucking up money and forcing ever more privacy-invasive targeting? If the NYT doesn't know its audience well enough to present demographic-targeted ads on particular articles and sections, what the hell is it doing tracking users individually? It's just taking the easy way out and giving advertising partners the enhanced tracking they want. But they don't need to do that, and whether or not they think they need to do it is orthogonal to the problem itself.

> You're correct of course, but I don't really see how this isn't a vacuous observation. Yes clearly our perceptions are at odds, but that has nothing to do with the reality of whether or not they need to be doing that tracking. Obviously they think they need to, or they wouldn't do it. But I think I've laid out a pretty strong argument that they actually don't need to, which leads me to believe that they actually haven't considered it seriously enough to give it a shot.

It most definitely is. But so is the word need, in this context. How would we define what they need to do, and what they don't need to do?

My argument is simply such that, of course they don't need to (by my definition), but nothing will change that unless they see a different, more lucrative offer. Ie, "oh hey, here's 2 million readers who will only read the page in plain html and will pay an extra $20/m". It just seems like a needless argument, as I don't believe there's anything that can change their behavior without us changing ours. Without the market changing.

Rather, I think the solution lies not in them, but in you. In us. To use blockers and filters to such an extreme degree that it's made clear that UX wins here, and they need to provide the UX to retain the customers.

Thus far, we've not done enough to change their "need". If a day comes that they do need to stop tracking us, well, they'll either live or die. But the problem, and solution, lies in us. My 2c.

> What you two agree upon, is the only thing that matters.

That's precisely why many of us use (and promote the use of) adblockers and filtering extensions.

Classic narrowcasting mistake that dying companies make.

Statista claims 2.3 million digital subscribers. NYT is trying to milk that 2.3M for everything they got, squeeze the last drops of blood from the stone while they still can.

That's a great way to go out of business, when 99.97% of the world population is not your customer and your squeezing labors are not going to encourage them to sign up.

If you hyperoptimize to squeeze every drop out of a small customer base, eventually you end up with something like legacy TV networks where 99% of the population won't watch a show even for free, and the tighter the target focus on an ever shrinking legacy audience, the smaller the audience gets, until the whole house of cards collapses.

Its similar to the slice of pie argument; there are many business strategies that make a pie slice "better" at the price of shrinking it, and eventually the paper-thin slice disappears from the market because the enormous number of the employees can't eat anymore, but that certainly will be the most hyperoptimized slice of pie ever made, right before it entirely disappears.

NYT is going to have a truly amazing spy product right before it closes.

Why is that doubtful? There's all kinds of examples of tiered subscriptions in the world. I think it would be doubtful because the NYT wouldn't want to explicitly admit all the tracking they are doing.

> Why is that doubtful? There's all kinds of examples of tiered subscriptions in the world. I think it would be doubtful because the NYT wouldn't want to explicitly admit all the tracking they are doing.

Many reasons, one of which you said. What would the price tag be for them to admit all they are tracking?

Currently the price is free, and comes bundled with uMatrix, and a cookie flush. I’d like to pay the NYT for their journalism, but only with money, not the ability to track me. As a result they get no money, and no tracking.

> Currently the price is free, and comes bundled with uMatrix, and a cookie flush. I’d like to pay the NYT for their journalism, but only with money, not the ability to track me. As a result they get no money, and no tracking.

You misunderstood me. I mean, what would they like you to pay them, for them to be 100% transparent about what they're doing for tracking, what their advertisers are doing and who they are, and possibly stopping all that entirely. Ie, what is it worth to them.