One thing I do to give myself time to think is to just rephrase the question as a way to ensure I understood correctly as well as demonstrating that you're listening and participating. I then ask clarifying questions and ask for them to confirm any assumptions I'm making based upon answers given as part of my thought process. It's just thinking out loud and can also help demonstrate _how_ you think about problems. This lays the groundwork for you to construct a cohesive narrative.
Can't readers just unsubscribe if they disagree with whatever the writer is saying? This just changes who pays the bills.
Ultimately, I think the writer will cater to their audience with subscriptions being a far stronger signal than clicks. I don't see how this is better for Democracy, but I'd love to be proved wrong. We need better access to better news, not more paywalls.
I actually participated in the program a couple of years ago. You used it for 6 months and it monitored your driving looking for things like rapid acceleration/deceleration -- I assume that's what leads to most accidents. It also tracked time of day as an indicator of how risky you are to insure. When I used it, it was only used to discount your insurance if you were a good driver by their metrics, not increase any premiums.
And I fell in love with it again. I'm learning how to work in this new world and it's fun as hell.