I don't like this argument.

If TX, MO and NC had passed ballots, it still would be undemocratic for those voters to disenfranchise their neighbours.

The Dem action is only justified because it's part of a strategy to pressure the GOP to agree to end gerrymandering altogether.

I think to some degree that's the limits of a Federal system where a mere 450 representatives try to represent a population of 350 million!

Ah, I did that social media thing of commenting without first reading the article for context!

Thanks for clarifying for me.

I think a lot of the people replying don't appreciate how lucky we all are to have been born into a free society.

And yes, some of these men are willing participants in atrocities, but it's still tragic and sad.

In fairness, I think we all agree that the door-dash "leftists" are infuriating

I think we also all recognise that we can only have nice things if the creators are able to earn money from their work

The question is whether the current business model is the best way to do things. Can it be improved

Or go without.
It's it not the end of the world that there's a few articles I don't get to read.

I just think it's a shame because a more flexible model would allow me to read more and the publications to earn more money. 🤷

I already subscribe to a full course meal, and like you say I get enjoy articles I might not otherwise have tried.

But I'm sure we can both agree that it would not be realistic to do this for every publication.

I've also got a couple of subscriptions. And I'm glad to support good journalism.

But sometimes there are good articles outside of my main publications, and it would be nice if there was a way to pay for them as well.

It's not the overall price people are complaining about. No one's asking for a lower subscription price.

They're more saying: "$7.50 for access to 200 articles isn't worth it if I'm only interested to read 5-10 of them, but if instead it gave me 40 articles of my choosing..."

Possibly.
I don't have hard evidence or market research.

All I know is that I'd personally spend more money on journalism, more publications would benefit from my spending, and there appear to be many others in a similar position.

If there's research been done on it, I'd be happy to read. (provided it's not behind a paywall ofcourse! 😅)

Has it ever been trialed?
I don't recall there being a trial of this type?

I think in a world with flexi-subscriptions, it would still be worth subscribing to your favourite one(s) to get the best value for money.

The flexi would work better as a supplementary, to pick up a smaller number of select articles that you wouldn't otherwise have been able to read.

I'm sure it has.
I'm guessing they're worried that if they offer flexible access then they'll lose subscriptions.

I'd be surprised if that's true though. If someone likes a publication though to subscribe, the flexi option would not give them the same value for money.

"don't want to pay for"?

Not a single person has asked to have it for free.

Have you given up trying to make a sensible argument?

There seems to be a large number of people in this discussion who are unwilling to pay the Atlantic for a full subscription, but would pay a smaller amount for the select few articles that pique their interest.

Aren't they missing potential revenue?

If that's how it is, then that's how it is. 🤷

But other industries do offer their customers better flexibility and value. Meanwhile, premium journalism struggles to compete with free content.

I personally think it would be in the industry's interests to offer customers a better deal!

That's an argument for having at least one subscription, maybe two...

But it's unrealistic to buy a subscription for every single publication out there.

Even with a "flexi" deal, I'd still want a main subscription for the best value, then the flexi to pick up odd articles from other publications.

The March elections were the point of no return.

Fortunately, the signs currently show Americans fighting back and he should at least lose the House in the mid terms.

America is running low on chances though. If Trump somehow keeps Congress, the next elections are not guaranteed...

It does raise an uncomfortable question though:

If a blundering fool was able to seize this much power, do this much damage, doesn't it make you dread to think what a more competent authoritarian could do?

Fortunately for us, Trump is clumsy, erratic and self defeating. Compared to more successful authoritarians like Putin and Erdoğan who were able to project an image of competence while patiently closing their grasp over their country's institutions, Trump is a blundering fool.

I think Trump will want to interfere with the mid terms but it's decentralised with the states so I think he'll struggle.

So I'd say whether it's 32 or 33 comes down to whether he's successful in interfering with the mid terms.

(so far I'm optimistic that he won't be successful)

He's trying to govern by decree but he doesn't have the power yet.

I understand that Nov 1932 was the last free and fair election, and that March 33 has interference (thugs intimidating the opposition) but the people still had an opportunity to vote him out.

I disagree.
When people are paying they're more discerning.

Clickbait works well in free content, when they're wasting nothing more than your time.

If my subscription provides me a limited number of premium articles per month, I'm not going to waste them on nonsense.

Aren't you needlessly restricting how many people have access to your work?

How many subscriptions can the average person afford?

If your publication isn't in their top 3, don't you lose them forever under this rigid system?

I don't think it would. It would make paid content more attractive to buyers and increase the revenue for quality journalism.

The old business model is dying but publishers are too stubborn to admit it.

That's turned out to be true though. I subscribe to streaming services one month at a time and get to access all the content I'm interested in at a reasonable price.

I think streaming is a huge improvement compared to the old cable/satellite deals.

I think he's always held that Trump is a wannabe fascist.

But that doesn't mean that the Government has become fascist as Trump doesn't YET have that level of control.

For now at least, the US has fair and free elections, where voters can kick him out democratically.

1933 saw the fire of the Reichstag followed by laws being passed that allowed the Government to rule by decree and opposition parties made illegal.

You've not reached that stage.

Although maybe 1932, the last time Germany had fair and free elections, is a better comparison.

In fairness, the world would be a better place if you'd turned out to be wrong. It's kind of depressing that events prove you right.

I'm tempted to ask them if they'd make a bet, but I'm not sure I trust them to honour it...