The New York Times has a science blog. A science blog that I cannot access because I am not subscribed to TimesSelect. The Times wants readers to pay to read a blog. This is worse than a blog without comments.
(Via Complex Medium.)
More like this
This e-mail just came in overnight - a great move by the New York Times:
Dear TimesSelect Subscriber,
We are ending TimesSelect, effective today.
That's what New York Magazine is reporting. By spring.
My interest in global warming grows apace, both because it stands to impose some very grim effects and because it makes an interesting (if dismaying) study in culture's attitude toward science (see my post on "
I'm with you on the John Hawks no comments thing, and I agree that it's silly to have a subscription based blog. The Times did the same thing with Michael Pollan's excellent blog "On The Table." I'm glad a friend of mine ponied up the money so I could borrow his access.
What's the difference between paying to read a blog -which I assume won't be plastered with ads -and reading a blog that is inundating me with them? I'm starting to feel like "not much."
Snap! Yeah, you've got a point there. There is a difference, though, between actively paying to read content versus passively paying due to advertising. I don't mind ads, but I hate paying for text on the internet. You can also subvert the ads using plugins.
Besides, it's fun to say Krakatoa!
I find it less fun when I repeat it three times a page.
Hmmmm, I sense dissension in the ranks. ;)
Reading a blog that has ads is totally different than paying hard cash to access content. It's like the difference between commercials on TV and pay-per-view. You can ignore them as you choose but someone reaching into my wallet is hard to ignore.