This is similar to (if not the same as?) the concept of "Trading up the chain" [1], whereby someone writes or plants a story in a smaller or less reputable medium with the hopes of getting it quoted and provided legitmacy by a more credible outlet. Ryan Holiday's book Trust Me I'm Lying talks about using this extensively, especially around some of the marketing he did with American Apparel and Tucker Max.
You start to see it everywhere once you know how to spot it, and it's (not surprisingly) extremely common to find in outlets that rely heavily on cranking out as many posts per hour as possible but someone still have brand equity (Forbes, Business Insider, Fast Company, any random crappy popular LinkedIn blog).
Deadspin's motto was "Sports news without access, favor or discretion". Unlike traditional media that essentially acts as mouthpieces for the teams that they cover (think of any press conference and the kinds of questions being asked, and the types of response they're designed to elicit), they used their status as outsiders to look at sports with a critical lens, and hold people in power in sports to account.
This didn't mean they hated sports though - you could tell from most of their reporting, especially by the OGs(Will Leitch, Drew Magary, Tim Burke etc), that they LOVED sports and wanted the people and teams involved to just be better. They also broke a lot of bonkers stories like the Manti Te'o scandal (highly recommend reading their report on it)[1] that no one in traditional media did a good job of interrograting or digging into.
The site still exists, but if you read it now you won't see this kind of reporting. It all changed about two years when they were bought by private equity (G/O I wanna say) who attempted to exercise control over their editorial, resulting in a mass resignation. Many of the old writers started Defector (https://defector.com/), which writes in the same spirit.
I'd argue the main cause of this is the REALTORs/real estate boards/MLS system that stonewalls any attempts at making real estate information publicly available precisely because the size of their paycheques relies on this information remaining hidden from the public. The conflict of interest beggars belief, but it's allowed to remain, among other reasons, since it also tends to benefit political parties courting votes from homeowners who see their home values continue to rise.
All of this though (ending blind bidding, making buy and sell data publicly available, etc.) is just using a bucket to bail out the Titanic since the system is designed to have prices continuously rise since Canadians are in house debt up to their eyeballs and have no idea how else to actually save for the long term and any party that actually changed this would likely never get voted into power again, if they even continued to exist.
Your last line is pretty much my exact opinion. I'm an idiot, but I struggle to see how significant taxes (and I mean SIGNIFICANT - something like having all rental income and cap gains on secondary residences taxed at the highest rate ~54%) in these cases wouldn't have extremely broad appeal. Make the sector unappealing as an investment class and you should stop seeing unfettered speculation. The idea of housing being an investment in general is warped.
The principal residence tax exemption is also a joke but I also understand it's political suicide to try and get rid of it and at this point, since so many people have their life savings tied up in real estate, you'd probably be causing more problems by removing it.
One state (North Carolina) does do something very similar, that keeps this kind of harassment largely in check [1]. By ensuring that all fines and forfeitures paid in a county must be used for that county's public schooling, they've essentially eliminated the incentive for cops to paper as many cars as they can.
ETA: This doesn't completely solve the problem, as the federal government provides some air cover to keep screwing people over, but it does do _something_
1Password recently did this with their $200MM Series A raise in 2019. Dave Teare talks about taking the majority of the money raised off the table when he spoke with DHH on an episode of the Rework podcast -https://www.rework.fm/venture-capital-and-control-with-david...
Absolutely fair to ask. It would be shocking if they don't provide one, to the point that I wouldn't trust that company with anything in the future and would likely file a chargeback to get the refund.
The fact that there are now dozens of services that exist to provide you with a burner CC number in order to sign up for these trials indicate that almost nobody actually wants to provide a credit card number for a trial. It's also just ridiculously user-hostile with very little proof that it results in higher customer activation compared to a trial that doesn't require a credit card.