The OP is not promoting conspiracy.
@optikhog: Yes, it does state "Subscription required," or "additional fees may be required," or something to that effect on many channels... and I do indeed pay for several of these channels. TANSTAAFL (google it.) Note though: nowhere... I'll repeat: nowhere.. does it say that you must have a cable subscription in order to view this channel. You find that out only when you try to watch it. NatGeo actually lets you watch about an hour of programming before they boot you out and want to know who your "provider" is. That would be called a "misleading practice" in my book. If a cable subscription is required to view the channel, it ought to say to right up front, so you don't waste your time and wind up frustrated and disappointed... and angry at being jerked around yet again, this time by Roku instead of cable (which most of us have learned to expect from them.)
Channels listed as Free, may be Free and may be Free to download and install, but you need to pay for those channels to work. So... Free? Kinda yes, and kinda no. The hand is quicker than the eye kinda thing. Then there's the old Free for seven days, but we have your credit card info and you get charged on day 8 - in the fine print. I wonder how many $Millions that's good for each year?
Eventually users get used to this kind of thing and stop installing those Free Channels - because they're not Free if you want to use them. If you just noticed a new charge on your credit card and realize you forgot to cancel that 'service' (running on that fast timer). Probably won't do that again.
Something else very missleading that a lot of sites do to get people to read their articals is start of with a subject "How to get xyz without cable", or "without paying for cable". But you start reading and you still have to subscribe to _____ to get it or to use what ever channel.
Yes, there are many online articles with misleading titles.