Believe it or not, outside the VC bubble, businesses need to make money to survive. (I know, right? Shocking!) Without revenue, there won't be a New York Times anymore. The paywall seems to be helping with that (see: http://allthingsd.com/20120806/the-new-york-times-reports-a-..., http://go.bloomberg.com/tech-blog/2012-12-20-the-new-york-ti...), and it's low enough that it's never seriously inconvenienced me as a non-subscriber. (Though it has prompted me a few times to think about becoming a subscriber, which is a feature, not a bug.)
So what's the beef?
When it comes to content, I think we should be encouraging companies to find ways to fund high quality content. That's what the NYT has done with their metered pay wall, and it feels like this is something that should be encouraged. Otherwise they will become yet another newspaper that is sold off or shut down...
http://www.google.com/search?btnI=I'm+Feeling+Lucky&q=let%20...
And yet here we all are ;-).
Who the f.. cares about their ulterior motives if they're successful in their unequivocally positive mission?
After reading the FB propaganda, that's a fair statement.
I remember getting my first PC at the age of 10, and a feeling of empowerment it brought me. Be it writing my first program that did sometime substantial, or playing Prince of Persia ( and clearing those levels ); what was substantial was the feeling that I am in control of this machine, and I can add/mould things as I want it! This sense of empowerment ( and later the ability to make use of the technology ) was possible only due to the latent fun quotient associated whilst using it (and it is best unspoiled by lack of supervision/or other's deciding how I should use the technology ).
This is very pertinent in an Indian context, where most act for "empowerment of poor" is coupled with the assumption that "poor are incapable of making their own decision".
