So you have the ability to "stop this bullshit" yourself, at least for the Economist's current page design.
A HUGE banner ad up the top and two big ads along the right hand side. Guess who'll be cancelling his fledgeling subscription?
There are article outlining services and add-ons you can use. I really don't mean to offend, I just think it would be better for HN if this wasn't one of the first comments on every thread.
But - should all this extra gear be necessary? It's fine for you and me, and everyone else here who understands all this stuff but what about the rest of the general population?
I think GP's point is fair, if you view it as constructive feedback rather than a criticism of the publication. I personally enjoy the economist but tend to steer clear of the online experience.
Now that's me, who is knowledgeable enough to work around the various glitches. What about the rest of the potential readership. This poor quality of execution is costing the economist circulation, therefore advertising revenue, and probably potential subscribers.
This is a technology website, I find UX discussion pretty relevant since all these news sites have horrible UX, and it should be pointed out each time they fail at basic UX. They don't need 50 nag screens. They could put most of them on the side or the top of their page, including GDPR notices. The reason why they use these invasive and annoying nag screens is that browsers ended up blocking all these annoying window based pop ups at first place.
Online news media just can't learn their lesson.
I too wish this terrible UX was an exception, don't get me wrong.
And it isn't every thread. It's usually the most egregious examples that people point out.
You are getting a free article, having to put up with those popups seems acceptable to me
If he won’t pay for subscriptions and he won’t view their ads (nor participate in the governmental mandates he can vote on) why should the economist serve him content at all?