Pay- or registration-walled, alas.
The Information has a real pay wall, and it's actually the most expensive out of this list, but if I subscribed to it, at least I wouldn't feel like a jackass for doing so. These companies want the Google crawling and the subscription fees, but it seems like you can only have one.
Have you considered that if you are reading the site so often that you need to keep killing your cookies, that you perhaps might be getting some value from the site, and it wouldn't be unreasonable for you to to reward the creators of such great content?
The NyTimes is not doing that for "casual use" they are doing it to allow Google's crawler access to the site so it can be indexed and show up on search engine result pages. This is why the incognito trick works on so many news websites.
> that you need to keep killing your cookies
I don't kill my cookies, I just cmd+shift+n to open incognito.
As for supporting sites I value, I visit so many of these sites, and read them, that I would potentially face financial ruin if I had to pay for them all. I get it, I want to support them, but I cannot, not at those prices, not when I can just open my incognito window, and not when even though I pay for the site I still have to deal with ads that roll down content as I'm trying to read it.
And I imagine you might have adblock enabled while you're sitting there judging me about not giving them cash for accessing the site. ;)
Re: Incognito Mode - the reason that works is it starts you out without any cookies. You've effectively cleared "all" your coookies.
Re: Supporting these sites - if you would really potentially face financial ruin, then that's a much different reason than you originally gave, which was that you felt like you would be a jackass for reading a site that you could hack into for free. The "I can't afford it" at least makes sense. I've personally decided that $3.75/week is worth it for me , but your financial situation may be different than mine, and I can at least appreciate that logic.
Re: Adblock - don't use it - though, not for any desire to support the sites, just isn't a big enough deal for me to worry about it.
I've been thinking about this a bit recently. Back before these sites were free online we picked the publication we liked and purchased it. We didn't need to read every publication and someone who chose to read the NYT was informed on the same world events as someone who read the WSJ. Then the internet came along and we read bits of everything for free. Now we have to go back to the old model it feels strange - but it shouldn't. Whether you chose to subscribe to and read the NYT or WSJ doesn't matter. You'll get the same information each with it's own slant. Same as before. You aren't going to miss anything. The publications need to convince consumers that this is ok and they don't need to be checking 10 different publications each day. Whether they can do that or not is another thing (short attention spans appear to be a big and growing problem) but I've definitely tried to pare down the number of sites I read and subscribe to and I've tried to focus on the best sources rather than 10 almost identical stories with slight variations. I've found it freeing.
I don't know if that would be better or worse though!
1. F12
2. Resources
3. Cookies
4. right click www.economist.com, clear
5. F5
Here are very simple guidelines for using NoScript:
Automatically block everything, if you trust a site, add it to a whitelist.
Most sites work without js, if they don't, then selectively enable scripts you need and keep others, you don't trust disabled.
Enabling scripts( or all of them ) for the current site requires a single click.
You can keep a js disabled and only enable parts of the site with clicking on blocked elements.