4 ms·

Not to be rude, but are you kidding? HN has provided you with a workaround, WSJ has provided you with free content, and that is not enough? How about signing

Not to be rude, but are you kidding? HN has provided you with a workaround, WSJ has provided you with free content, and that is not enough? How about signing up for the WSJ?

coderdude 10y ago
vintageseltzer, entitlement. Entitlement, vintageseltzer. Now that you've both met, welcome to "hacker culture."
downandout 10y ago
are you kidding? No. The volume of links to this one particular site with a very aggressive paywall has been increasing. Further, HN administrators actually change links pointing to alternative sites over to paywalled WSJ URLs when WSJ has the story (I know, because it happened with a story I submitted). WSJ has provided you with free content They're not ad supported? How about signing up for the WSJ? I might consider it, if they weren't so obnoxious with the paywall, along with inundating their pages with ads and completely blocking the loading of content when using an ad blocker. I will not reward that type of behavior, and neither should anyone else. I reported them to Google for cloaking a few weeks ago because under certain circumstances, the paywall comes up even when clicking over from Google (so, to your argument that "HN has provided [me] with a workaround" - that isn't always the case because they flagrantly violate Google's anti-cloaking policy under certain circumstances, on top of everything else).
- coderdude 10y ago
  You're trolling, right? This is a parody or something. > I will not reward that type of behavior My mind is being blown. I'm completely feeding right now.
  - downandout 10y ago
    So everyone that doesn't share your opinion is trolling? No, I'm not. If you want to pay WSJ for that type of behavior, you're certainly welcome to.
    - coderdude 10y ago
      Do not object to the WSJ paywall. I will not allow it. I will not stand for this.
  - Trundle 10y ago
    Definitely stay away from the comments on any article specifically about ads/ad blocking/content site monetisation haha. This guy isn't alone.
    - coderdude 10y ago
      I just can't tell anymore. Everything I read is so bizarre that I'm convinced it's just people messing with us. I'm probably being too charitable.
      - Trundle 10y ago
        As far as I can tell, some people believe everyone elses primary purpose should be to make their life better. The owners, writers, marketers, developers, and other stakeholders in the wsj shouldn't be thinking about providing for themselves, they should be nobly sacrificing their lives so that we have something amusing to read for a minute or so a couple times a week (for free of course). A few days ago I was talking to a guy in real life about pokemon go and he was both genuinely angry at the developers and also, unironically, called them entitled. I was flabbergasted. Entitled for making something and allowing this guy to use it, but him being genuinely angry at people he'd never met, nor had any dealings with, for not providing enough value was completely reasonable to him. All I know is that if I ever run a business or accidentally become a celebrity, I'm keeping an army of PR suits between me and the general public. Too many people indignant about too many things to attempt honest public discourse with my real name attached.
        coderdude 10y ago
        You're my new favorite person on HN. I haven't heard anyone word this so well. It's refreshing to hear the voice of reason.
        downandout 10y ago
        As far as I can tell, some people believe everyone elses primary purpose should be to make their life better. I made a statement that it might be nice if WSJ gave HN users the same treatment they give to Google users. You've made a radical generalization about someone based upon a single statement on a comment thread. People that make radical generalizations about others based upon one data point are among the most dangerous in our society. Hitler did this, as do religiously motivated terrorists, racists, etc. Upon what other data points do you make such generalizations? Race? Religion? Sex?
- kalleboo 10y ago
  > I might consider it, if they weren't so obnoxious with the paywall "If they gave me all the content upfront for free without ads, I would then choose pay for it". You expect us to believe this?
  - downandout 10y ago
    Do you honestly think that I care what you believe? I made a statement. I would consider paying WSJ because of the high quality content if they weren't such abusive people, but because they are, they won't get a dime from me. I also never even mildly suggested that they should have no ads, only that they shouldn't make web browsers grind to a halt with so many ads.
econner 10y ago
but, but, this is the internet where everything is free and the money comes from advertising

Not to be rude, but are you kidding? HN has provided you with a workaround, WSJ has provided you with free content, and that is not enough? How about signing up for the WSJ?

coderdude 10y ago

vintageseltzer, entitlement. Entitlement, vintageseltzer. Now that you've both met, welcome to "hacker culture."

downandout 10y ago

are you kidding? No. The volume of links to this one particular site with a very aggressive paywall has been increasing. Further, HN administrators actually change links pointing to alternative sites over to paywalled WSJ URLs when WSJ has the story (I know, because it happened with a story I submitted). WSJ has provided you with free content They're not ad supported? How about signing up for the WSJ? I might consider it, if they weren't so obnoxious with the paywall, along with inundating their pages with ads and completely blocking the loading of content when using an ad blocker. I will not reward that type of behavior, and neither should anyone else. I reported them to Google for cloaking a few weeks ago because under certain circumstances, the paywall comes up even when clicking over from Google (so, to your argument that "HN has provided [me] with a workaround" - that isn't always the case because they flagrantly violate Google's anti-cloaking policy under certain circumstances, on top of everything else).

coderdude 10y ago
You're trolling, right? This is a parody or something. > I will not reward that type of behavior My mind is being blown. I'm completely feeding right now.
- downandout 10y ago
  So everyone that doesn't share your opinion is trolling? No, I'm not. If you want to pay WSJ for that type of behavior, you're certainly welcome to.
  - coderdude 10y ago
    Do not object to the WSJ paywall. I will not allow it. I will not stand for this.
- Trundle 10y ago
  Definitely stay away from the comments on any article specifically about ads/ad blocking/content site monetisation haha. This guy isn't alone.
  - coderdude 10y ago
    I just can't tell anymore. Everything I read is so bizarre that I'm convinced it's just people messing with us. I'm probably being too charitable.
    - Trundle 10y ago
      As far as I can tell, some people believe everyone elses primary purpose should be to make their life better. The owners, writers, marketers, developers, and other stakeholders in the wsj shouldn't be thinking about providing for themselves, they should be nobly sacrificing their lives so that we have something amusing to read for a minute or so a couple times a week (for free of course). A few days ago I was talking to a guy in real life about pokemon go and he was both genuinely angry at the developers and also, unironically, called them entitled. I was flabbergasted. Entitled for making something and allowing this guy to use it, but him being genuinely angry at people he'd never met, nor had any dealings with, for not providing enough value was completely reasonable to him. All I know is that if I ever run a business or accidentally become a celebrity, I'm keeping an army of PR suits between me and the general public. Too many people indignant about too many things to attempt honest public discourse with my real name attached.
      - coderdude 10y ago
        You're my new favorite person on HN. I haven't heard anyone word this so well. It's refreshing to hear the voice of reason.
      - downandout 10y ago
        As far as I can tell, some people believe everyone elses primary purpose should be to make their life better. I made a statement that it might be nice if WSJ gave HN users the same treatment they give to Google users. You've made a radical generalization about someone based upon a single statement on a comment thread. People that make radical generalizations about others based upon one data point are among the most dangerous in our society. Hitler did this, as do religiously motivated terrorists, racists, etc. Upon what other data points do you make such generalizations? Race? Religion? Sex?
kalleboo 10y ago
> I might consider it, if they weren't so obnoxious with the paywall "If they gave me all the content upfront for free without ads, I would then choose pay for it". You expect us to believe this?
- downandout 10y ago
  Do you honestly think that I care what you believe? I made a statement. I would consider paying WSJ because of the high quality content if they weren't such abusive people, but because they are, they won't get a dime from me. I also never even mildly suggested that they should have no ads, only that they shouldn't make web browsers grind to a halt with so many ads.

econner 10y ago

but, but, this is the internet where everything is free and the money comes from advertising