I also see it as a question of trust: why give a full complement of details that can serve to pinpoint individuals?

In the whole of the pre-election period, The Times did not act in a trustworthy manner and the provision of investigative journalism across the board was sorely lacking.

When they add a paypal possibility to their portal, I may find it interesting to subscribe to the full service. Since their agenda remains unclear, why then the expectation for readers to trust them with their full details?

Surely they were not unaware from the outset of the recent online subscription implementation that this current system can be by-passed.

Trust is a valuable intangible that should work both ways.

It’s not an app. It’s a Google Chrome extension, TOM Taghna Lkoll. And obviously, it only works with the Google Chrome browser.

It’s a computer-based App located in the Chrome store.

It exists :)

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tom-comment-mute/dlloblkjmgemkjmidffghppadofofgob

It’s not a question of ‘breaking one’s bank’ – but simply a question of suddenly finding one’s way barred by an unjustified fee system capriciously introduced overnight and overcoming the barrier.

[Daphne – The fee system is fully justified. The service costs money. Expect to pay for it. The money to provide that service has to come from somewhere. The cost of running a newsroom is huge.]

Thanks. Tried it and managed to read whatever article I wanted to – after finding my way through technical details meant for ‘computer consumption’.

So much for the Times trying to prop up its finances.

I suspect, however, that the paper will find a way of blocking our efforts.

Maybe next November when the Labour Party present their Budget?