Perhaps. But the house always wins. Hypothetically or otherwise.

So I do find it disingenous to imply that it's either ad-free or anarchy reigns - for a start the Freemium model would work great here (imho, ofc,) but I get that you're fundamentally opposed to ads. That's OK - a principle is a principle - but it's not the only way to build a responsible site, and that's where you over-simplify. It's not a black-and-white game.

I also find it disingenous when companies imply that decisions were made for the benefits of the workers when the bottom line is the bottom line. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have to be paid members to earn, which I personally find ridiculous. I was already a member, so financially it makes no difference to me - I just object to the obligation to be a member in order to earn.

I know, I know, I know -- a lot of people don't agree with me. In fact some of them have bought into 'pay to play' to an almost evangelical degree.

Perhaps it's a culture clash, because I guarantee if you walked into any pub here in Wales and said 'if you provide me with a product (i.e. content,) then I'll pay you for it so that I can also make money - but only if you also pay me for the privilege of the opportunity to work' then some choice words would be said.

But then, we are a predominantly Socialist nation (not Communist - I know a lot of people get those confused,) and I understand you're a US company and American attitudes to these things are often very, very, different.

You're running a company, and you do what you have to do - I get that. But don't sugarcoat it - or act as if it's the only way. It may be the best way (I don't agree, but I'm not the one with the numbers in front of me) --but the only way? Nah. The villain is not ads. There never was a villain - because this isn't a fairy tale.