And added trackers and a cookie popup to it, and censored the word lists (guess and solution).
And their own statement about it implied they intend to put it behind a paywall eventually (wording was something like "it will initially remain free for new and existing users").
If they want to put it behind a paywall, charge $100 a game, show Taboola links, or make people log in to a NYT account, that’s their choice. People can vote with their feet then. I just don’t get why folks are so salty. Does everyone on HN work for free?
Again with this bizarre logical nonsequiteur that because they can do something I'm not allowed to be annoyed by it. Second time in this direct chain of replies.
I don't get why people keep making this same completely nonsensical argument. Do you honestly think that whenever a company does something that they are legally permitted to do there is some obligation on everyone else to not feel any negative emotions about it? Is that how you think the world works?
I doubt you or "kertiyoowiyop" do actually think that. I suspect what's happening is that you're perfectly fine with what's happened (which is of course entirely your choice and fine with me) and you're seeing people who aren't, and because you don't share their objections you feel an urge to go around making comments to the effect of "your views are irrelevant, stop whining and deal with it", which is rude, information-free trolling.
If you think there's some actual reason I should agree with you that what the nyt's done here is fine and I have no cause to be annoyed by it then please, let's hear it. Otherwise, just accept that not everyone feels the same way as you about things.
And no, I don't work for free. I do play for free.
I think it strikes an emotional chord with the ongoing trend of private capital enclosing every social Commons it can.
While I don't think it's the right hill to die on (Wordle is a trivially cloneable public good; NYT's actual actions have been relatively mild; there are seventeen trillion bigger fish to fry) one can certainly understand a visceral reaction (violation of sanctity) when "community" bleeds into "corporation", even by the tiniest bit.
And their own statement about it implied they intend to put it behind a paywall eventually (wording was something like "it will initially remain free for new and existing users").