4 ms·
Thank you. I don't understand why people put up wsj links on HN. If you're a wsj subscriber, you've probably read it already. If you're not, you can't, unless
by woodandsteel 9y ago
Thank you.
I don't understand why people put up wsj links on HN. If you're a wsj subscriber, you've probably read it already. If you're not, you can't, unless someone puts up an alternative link.
At the least, someone who puts up a wsj link ought to include an alternative link.
- jseliger 9y agoI don't understand why people put up wsj links on HN Because the WSJ does a lot of reporting that can't be found anywhere else. Furthermore, a lot of people also decry the way advertising has distorted the web and media orgs. There are two major ways to pay for news: ads and subscriptions. People who don't like the former ought to like the latter. Before someone points this out, let me say that I'd love to see micro-payments work out but we have not seen this work yet even after twenty years of prognostication on the topic.
- woodandsteel 9y agoI see I didn't make my point clear enough. I am saying that a wsj link put up on HN has no utility, because the people who could read it likely already have, and the link does no good for the people who can't read it. I agree entirely about the problem with advertising, and the need for something micro-payments.
- matt4077 9y agoI wonder if there's any overlap between the group of people who always complain about ads, those that complain about paywalls, and maybe even those that say journalism is worthless "because they're all just rewriting the AP ticker". Because it appears as if people think the future of journalism is hundreds of high-quality, independent, investigative newspapers. Who each have one subscriber who summarises the articles for their ad-free blog.