Not relevant to the topic, but how do sites expect you to read articles like this on your phone when they have 50% of the screen taken up by ads, many of which slide onscreen as you scroll, covering part of the content you were reading? This is so intrusive I couldn’t finish reasing it.

I know they have to have some way to pay the bills, but does this technique really work where people get so frustrated they decide to subscribe rather than close the site like I did?

The ad load isn’t heavy to convince you to subscribe. It’s heavy because many readers use ad blockers, and the publisher wants to stay in business somehow.

Hijacking the back button, on the other hand, is just rude.

I haven’t had this thought since installing 1Blocker on my iOS decide years ago…

I didn't see any ads on Firefox mobile + uBlock Origin

Look up Hindustan Times on YouTube and tell me based on thumbnails if they are a reputable news source.

The Hindustan Times is widely known in India, and is considered reliable as a source of information.

I wasn't sure which thumbnails you were referring to on a quick perusal of their YT channel, but my mind instantly assumed you meant the sensationalism associated with Indian media - that's regrettably a feature, not a bug, in that ecosystem.

The physical copy is. Not the online wing. That's mostly clickbait

All the "Putin utterly defeats NATO" over and over again thumbnails

Trends are towards a more violent world. I wish that weren’t the choice but the world is as it’s always been a broken place where evil reigns.

Yeah, the reason is “any company can have the $100k fee waived if they bend over which is great leverage to have”

The HN generated headline turns this into clickbait. The actual headline is really ".. White House (says)". This headline just turns it into a qualified fact when it isn't.