look. I don't have a horse in this fight, and I understand everyone's gotta make money. but there's something about selling folks on your quirky independent-vibe puzzle site - solve a puzzle for a chance at a key! get a physical postcard with your website key! hurry and get a lifetime subscription before we launch! - only for the depth of the whole project's already-established ownership by belongs to one of the biggest newspaper monopolies in the world that feels very weird.
like I don't think they "we're indie" and got caught lying but they sure as heck didn't make this information clear from the get-go. and I think puzzmo there's good value in what they've made, and they deserve both sustainability and success! but there's a difference between supporting a creator you like and giving the inheritors of William Randolph Hearst's legacy some walkin-around money
feels weird!!
update - a couple of folks have pointed out that there hasn't been any effort to hide Hearst's involvement from the start - I shared an example of one, and there's a podcast link the comments where Zach talks about it (which I have not listened to.) fair shout, this was an association I (and a lot of other people) didn't put much stock in. what I think IS fair game is that the site + project isn't "in association with" Hearst, it's owned by them, and has been from the start.
update Update - There's a reply from zach in the comments to this post. I don't think it addresses my fundamental criticism but I appreciate his response.