Yes, the NYT is one of the few outlets that is doing reasonably well right now. But many newspapers are going out of business, or at least furloughing employees -- employees who already were not earning huge salaries.
If you read the article, and they ask for money to let you do that -- then honor that request. Just because you can hop over a paywall doesnt mean you should.
You don't deserve the downvotes. Just because the technical measures used to protect the content are weak doesn't grant you the right to circumvent it. Hacker-types always seem have this fallacy of "if I can do it, I'm allowed to do it. I understand it -- we're all hackers because we get joy out of breaking technical locks and using things for purposes they weren't intended and rule-layering digital systems. But just because someone uses a cheap lock it doesn't mean you have the right to break it.
Who even cares about the copyright violation vs theft distinction at this point? They're offering access to their content for a price, they're not bothering with draconian DRM and so it's a dick move to just take it.
How about buying a subscription to not just NYT or other national outlets, but local news organizations so the people reporting on these issues can keep the lights on.
> The NYT is knowingly attacking his livelyhood and person by exposing him in this way.
You have no evidence to back up this claim.
Yes, the fact SSC was fast to publish information about the coronavirus than other organizations. But, do you really think the NYT, a behemoth in the media world, considers an obscure blog -- to many -- a threat?
I've considered NYT a propaganda rag ever since they marketed the attack on Iraq. Just because Trump is saying something does not mean it is false - a large part of how he gained such a following is from tapping into a lot of real frustrations that people have. Consolidated mainstream media in the US is the equivalent of state media in the USSR - they're both mouthpieces of the ruling power structure. The US just airs competing factions which creates an illusion of vibrancy.
(disclaimer: Please don't take this as some endorsement of Trump. Even though some of his claims are right, he apparently isn't so much opposed to that corruption as an outsider looking into get in on the action. Also after being elected, most presidents tone down the divisive pandering)
> ..he apparently isn't so much opposed to that corruption as an outsider looking into get in on the action. Also after being elected, most presidents tone down the divisive pandering
> Just because Trump is saying something does not mean it is false - a large part of how he gained such a following is from tapping into a lot of real frustrations that people have.
Contrary: A majority of his statements have been proven false.
