4 ms·

> Let the votes do their job. Voting doesn't work if people are disenfranchised. 20% of HN discussing an article the other 80% can't read will be the end of HN

by irq-1 10y ago

> Let the votes do their job. Voting doesn't work if people are disenfranchised. 20% of HN discussing an article the other 80% can't read will be the end of HN. Maybe if this was a sub-reddit "community" where access to the WSJ was assumed, but HN is a general and open discussion board. (Also, when politics or people like Taleb Nissam or Paul Krugman are discussed, the voting isn't very informative.)

rubidium 10y ago
Using "disenfranchised" in this case with made up statistics of 20% and 80% is rather odd. There are _plenty_ of discussions to participate in here. WSJ make up maybe 1-2 articles on the front page per day? Can someone explain why this matters enough to even consider a banning of content? For those who don't want to see it: upvote other things! I'd much rather see a surge in voting non-mainstream media content then for HN to enforce banning. Come on people, we can be better! [[As a personal aside, I typically don't upvote and rarely read discussions about mainstream press (WSJ, NY times, WashPost,Economist) here. ]]
- lloydde 10y ago
  > WSJ make up maybe 1-2 articles on the front page per day Per day!
  - evgen 10y ago
    Damn those pesky journalists doing all the research and legwork to discover and explain information (and doing it over and over again to the point where they become a useful and trusted news source) and then expecting to get paid for it. Don't they realize that the sharing economy means I get to use all your stuff whenever I feel like it? The workaround is not difficult, deal with it.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      > The workaround is not difficult, Several people have said that the work around is not working for them. That's the whole point of the thread. It's in the OP, it's in several replies. Most people wouldn't mind paywall links if the workaround was working, but it's not working for some people.
    - teh_klev 10y ago
      Nobody is saying that journalists shouldn't be compensated for their work. The discussion, as Dan pointed out, is about whether articles behind paywalls, that can no longer be penetrated using the usual tricks, hacks and incantations have any place on the site if they can't be read by the majority of the community. Oh and this: >"deal with it" Really? Please contain your unwarranted indignation.
    - lloydde 10y ago
      The first part of Your response is a non sequitur. The problem is the workaround doesn't work for what is clearly a large percentage of this forums population
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>There are _plenty_ of discussions to participate in here. WSJ make up maybe 1-2 articles on the front page per day? Can someone explain why this matters enough to even consider a banning of content? 1-2 articles on the front page per day is a lot. To answer your main question though, while I think banning wsj.com would be heavy-handed, I'd be in favor of penalizing the domain so its articles are less likely to reach the front page and stay on it for so long. I think the reason people are having issue with it is that the topics themselves tend to be interesting, but without access to the article, participating in the discussion becomes difficult. This can be rather frustrating for people. I know this first-hand because the incognito "trick" used to work for me, but no longer does for some reason. So I find myself effectively blocked out of the conversations.
  - z0r 10y ago
    I don't think this is the kind of comment that should be downvoted. I'm in the same boat as enraged_camel.
- superflyguy 10y ago
  At least make links to paywalled stories identifiable via text/colour, or allow logged in users to not even let them appear on the page on the first place. Otherwise you're simply frustrating users unnecessarily.
pc86 10y ago
Not having a subscription to the WSJ (I do not) does not make you "disenfranchised."
msluyter 10y ago
Since when has reading the article ever been a prerequisite for discussing it on HN? ;) </snark> That said, iirc, someone often helpfully posts the text of the article in such cases. Why go through the effort of banning something when either a) someone will continue to do that, or b) interest/upvotes in paywalled stories will die naturally?

by irq-1 10y ago

rubidium 10y ago

Using "disenfranchised" in this case with made up statistics of 20% and 80% is rather odd. There are _plenty_ of discussions to participate in here. WSJ make up maybe 1-2 articles on the front page per day? Can someone explain why this matters enough to even consider a banning of content? For those who don't want to see it: upvote other things! I'd much rather see a surge in voting non-mainstream media content then for HN to enforce banning. Come on people, we can be better! [[As a personal aside, I typically don't upvote and rarely read discussions about mainstream press (WSJ, NY times, WashPost,Economist) here. ]]

lloydde 10y ago
> WSJ make up maybe 1-2 articles on the front page per day Per day!
- evgen 10y ago
  Damn those pesky journalists doing all the research and legwork to discover and explain information (and doing it over and over again to the point where they become a useful and trusted news source) and then expecting to get paid for it. Don't they realize that the sharing economy means I get to use all your stuff whenever I feel like it? The workaround is not difficult, deal with it.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    > The workaround is not difficult, Several people have said that the work around is not working for them. That's the whole point of the thread. It's in the OP, it's in several replies. Most people wouldn't mind paywall links if the workaround was working, but it's not working for some people.
  - teh_klev 10y ago
    Nobody is saying that journalists shouldn't be compensated for their work. The discussion, as Dan pointed out, is about whether articles behind paywalls, that can no longer be penetrated using the usual tricks, hacks and incantations have any place on the site if they can't be read by the majority of the community. Oh and this: >"deal with it" Really? Please contain your unwarranted indignation.
  - lloydde 10y ago
    The first part of Your response is a non sequitur. The problem is the workaround doesn't work for what is clearly a large percentage of this forums population
enraged_camel 10y ago
>>There are _plenty_ of discussions to participate in here. WSJ make up maybe 1-2 articles on the front page per day? Can someone explain why this matters enough to even consider a banning of content? 1-2 articles on the front page per day is a lot. To answer your main question though, while I think banning wsj.com would be heavy-handed, I'd be in favor of penalizing the domain so its articles are less likely to reach the front page and stay on it for so long. I think the reason people are having issue with it is that the topics themselves tend to be interesting, but without access to the article, participating in the discussion becomes difficult. This can be rather frustrating for people. I know this first-hand because the incognito "trick" used to work for me, but no longer does for some reason. So I find myself effectively blocked out of the conversations.
- z0r 10y ago
  I don't think this is the kind of comment that should be downvoted. I'm in the same boat as enraged_camel.
superflyguy 10y ago
At least make links to paywalled stories identifiable via text/colour, or allow logged in users to not even let them appear on the page on the first place. Otherwise you're simply frustrating users unnecessarily.

pc86 10y ago

Not having a subscription to the WSJ (I do not) does not make you "disenfranchised."

msluyter 10y ago

Since when has reading the article ever been a prerequisite for discussing it on HN? ;) </snark> That said, iirc, someone often helpfully posts the text of the article in such cases. Why go through the effort of banning something when either a) someone will continue to do that, or b) interest/upvotes in paywalled stories will die naturally?